What are the acceptable ways to search for animal sex?(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-04-10 01:42:33 by [deleted]
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 2 points on 2015-04-10 02:03:06
I would say it depends on what one is trying to look for. Be it bestiality porn, mating videos, possible tutorials, or maybe the mechanics of it all. I always run a VPN and incognito window for stuff like that, though :P. What kinda stuff are you trying to search(in more detail)? I'd like to think I am pretty good at forming good search queries :)
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 02:10:59
I'm interested, are responsible zoos only allowed to have sex with animals they own? Is it preferable if zoos avoid penetration at all?
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 2 points on 2015-04-10 02:25:49
lol Maybe I misunderstood the original question. I was multitasking, so sorry if my answer did not help in other ways. As for what you have stated, I would say it is a bit of a controversial subject and a bit more of a case by case sorta thing. There are many factors that play into it all, just like factors that would play into the same sort of thing with people. I can only say that I personally solely have sex with my dog, and I do not penetrate him obviously. But it all depends.
SunTzuSaidThat 3 points on 2015-04-10 02:18:19
Avoid causing harm at all costs. Don't be an asshole, use your brain, use your heart. Be knowledgeable about your species of interest. Believe in the fact that every zoo is an ambassador, and put that idea into practice. Don't get yourself on the wrong side of the law.
Within those confines, use whatever way you want.
kkllee -3 points on 2015-04-10 02:28:30
I don't think it can be generalized that way.
SunTzuSaidThat 1 point on 2015-04-10 02:41:45
Why not?
kkllee -1 points on 2015-04-10 03:03:56
We have acceptable ways to ask for borrowings, ways that we can write on specific situations, for instance, why should this be different?
SunTzuSaidThat 1 point on 2015-04-10 03:36:13
By "borrowings" do you mean "loans"? Like from a bank? I'm not totally understanding your writing, sorry.
If I'm understanding this the way I think you meant it (please correct me), you're asking me why I think getting a mortgage and having sex with a sex partner should be different in a social, ethical, legal, practical sense. Is that right?
kkllee -2 points on 2015-04-10 03:42:04
What I mean is that everything with a legal consequence can be regulated efficiently.
coyotedriftZoo Friendly 2 points on 2015-04-10 03:51:37
tell that to the US Government
SunTzuSaidThat 2 points on 2015-04-10 03:57:32
Here's some food for thought, if I understand what you're getting at.
Even if you can attempt to regulate something with "legal consequences" (the term could use defining) like the particulars of a sex act, should a system do so? Will these regulations be enforceable? If so, who enforces them, and how? What are the punishments for failing to follow the regulations? Even if such a system were to exist, what makes you think it would be efficient?
duskwuff 2 points on 2015-04-10 04:41:09
Don't get him started. Seriously… don't.
kkllee -5 points on 2015-04-10 06:37:26
Oh, I started long ago.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 9 points on 2015-04-10 04:02:41
dude, no. we're not talking about your rules any more.
kkllee -3 points on 2015-04-10 06:37:02
That isn't the point, basically we have a bunch of zoophiles who really want to have sex withs some animals, my question is: what would be their options under a system governed by responsible zoo's? what would be the acceptable channels he can achieve his goals?
Dogsnogg 6 points on 2015-04-10 10:29:16
I have a very simple answer to that:
Be responsible enough to get a good job to support yourself and your animals.
Get a place with privacy and plenty of space for you and your animals to live and have sex safely.
Build a relationship with your animals that allows for sex to be a positive and rewarding experience for you both.
That's it. No need for a "governed system" to regulate anything.
The problem with your questions are that they treat the animal like something to be used for sex. If you replace "Animals" with "Women", your questions would be outrageously offensive.
You don't treat animals like living sex toys. They deserve care, comfort, and respect. Almost no situation in which you keep animals for the purposes of sex does this.
You don't whore out the ones you love.
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 17:52:06
Try to look it trough this lens, they are laws that permit physical assault to go unpunished if they were preced by verbal assault, like if someone starts throwing racial and sexual slurs, and the victim gets pissed and punches them.
One could argue that we don't need governance on such issues, that is just between the two subjects, but if it comes between getting arrested and getting away, then defining such boundaries such that they cannot be misinterpreted, is important
Dogsnogg 2 points on 2015-04-10 21:06:03
they are laws that permit physical assault to go unpunished if they were preced by verbal assault, like if someone starts throwing racial and sexual slurs, and the victim gets pissed and punches them.
Perhaps in Mexico, this is true. But in America, we have laws against making verbal threats (assault) and physical attacks (battery).
For example, if I were calling someone names, using racial slurs, insulting their mother, etc. The person I am abusing cannot hit me for it. The moment I make a threat, though, like saying "I will kick your ass!", I'm guilty of assault.
But the person cannot hit me for it. If he does, he is guilty of battery. The only time someone can legally hit another, is if I have made a physical threat, like taking a swing at them.
But I think you're missing the point here. This isn't about me, it's about my animals, whom I want to protect. My personal desire for legal protection must take a backseat to my animal's welfare.
If I were to go out in the middle of the street, and shout "I FUCK MY HORSE!", legally, there is nothing that can be done about it.
But then I have to worry about someone following me home, sneaking onto my property at night, and illegally stealing my horse. Or calling the HSUS (Humane Society), who would open an investigation and do their damndest to take my dogs (and probably euthanize them because they are "unadoptable" due to the supposed sexual abuse).
You focus so hard on the legal aspects of the subject, that you forget the social aspect. There are many, many people out there that would use any means (legal or illegal), to stop what they think of as abuse.
So yes, while I would love to see legal protections in place for zoophiles, the reality is that right now, fighting for them would put the animals that I love, in very serious danger.
There is a huge movement right now towards the repeal of so-called "morality laws", many of which are used to prosecute beastiality. This is already happening, and if we keep our heads down and our animals safe, we can enjoy the benefits of that movement without putting our animals' lives at risk.
This is a long, slow process, but it will happen in time. We probably won't see the legalization of beastiality in our lifetimes, so we must think longer-term and let society come around to our point of view.
There will be a time we can stand up for ourselves, but that day is a long ways away, and trying to force the issue now will result in harsher laws instead.
Activism would hurt us far more than it would help, and I don't want to see Zoos or their animals get hurt, especially for something that I feel is inevitable anyways.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-04-10 02:21:47
It looks like you're asking how to get another person to lend you their pet for sex???
You don't sound like a narc at all.
kkllee -1 points on 2015-04-10 02:41:51
Well, we can agree that brothers should not exist ever, but then zoophilia is restricted to pet-owner relationships.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-04-10 03:26:11
What are you trying to accomplish? You're not going to get people to say "ye fencehopping is a-okay in all cases ever". I know you're not a zoophile, so I doubt you're looking for validation.
Also I get that second languages are tough, but your replies don't even correspond to what they're replying to and it's difficult to follow what you're saying.
kkllee -2 points on 2015-04-10 03:56:34
Ok, so the answer is yes, then the only possible acceptable intercourse is pet-owner.
Dogsnogg 2 points on 2015-04-10 04:04:52
I think he intended to say "brothels", as in legal animal prostitution.
Dogsnogg 3 points on 2015-04-10 04:12:50
It depends on what you're looking for.
If you're just looking to fuck an animal and don't care about their welfare, there are countries where this is legal, but prone to massive animal abuse.
But a pet/owner relationship is the only option currently for those that wish to engage in beastiality, but don't want to support abuse.
And in that context, getting to know a fellow zoophile who trusts you enough to let you have sex with their animals is the only way a person that does not own an animal, can reasonably find one to have sex with.
But that takes time and a lot of trust between you and the owner, so finding such a person and forming such a relationship is extremely difficult.
Even fencehopping or cruising for strays isn't considered ethical, as the animal is often euthanized or relocated if it's found that someone has had sex with them.
kkllee 2 points on 2015-04-10 06:43:03
What about using wildlife or dead bodies, those are considered unethical, but I'm interested in the why.
Dogsnogg 3 points on 2015-04-10 09:48:05
Wildlife has an instinctive fear of humans, so you'd have to catch and restrain an animal, which goes against consensual ethic.
However, if you're out in the woods and a deer comes up to you, and lets you fuck it without any coercion, and as long as the animal is free to leave the situation, I don't see a problem with that.
I'd envy the hell out of you, actually!
As for dead bodies.. ew. But once an animal is dead, it's no longer zoophilia, it's necrophilia, and you'll have to talk to somebody else about the ethics behind that, because the topic makes me queasy.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2015-04-10 14:01:22
Not all feral wildlife is afraid of humans. I've had feral deer walk up to me close enough for them to sniff my hands. Lots of videos of feral horses going right up to people. There are also cave paintings of people fucking animals.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2015-04-10 20:05:51
Going out on a limb, I'd say that dead (human) bodies are considered unethical because people feel about them as if the soul is still attached, but can't do anything to resist you.
While I don't agree with this view, and would happily put necrophiles third in line for my body after medical research and organ donation, I think it is how people view bodies.
Animal bodies, now that's slightly more complex. Just consider leather fetishism — leather dildos and face masks in particular. Totally legal, widely tolerated, creeps me right out.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-04-10 22:15:30
Honestly I don't really get what's so awful about necrophilia. I mean, I get it in the sense that the body is owned by someone else, but that's about it. To be fair, I'm not religious and not spiritual, so I'm sure I'm missing something. XD
Dogsnogg 1 point on 2015-04-10 22:55:30
I think it's considered unethical because we associate a corpse with the identity of the individual that was alive before. Things done to a person's corpse are remembered as though they were done to the person themselves while alive. This is why governments issue posthumous awards and apologies to people that have long passed on (Alan Turing, for example).
Our society holds an belief that the memories of a person and their relationships and accomplishments, are as important as the person themselves, and that extends to the treatment of their body after death. We even make laws against defiling a corpse, as it is important to society that we respect what we believe to be the dead's wishes, including what happens to their corpse.
I'll fully admit my personal bias, though. I just cannot get over the feeling of repulsion about necrophilia. I don't think I cannot make a rational argument about it at this time, as I have not explored the topic in depth enough to build a case for or against it.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-04-11 01:21:04
I kinda get that? But I still end up thinking of it more as 'vandalism' in a way. Like the corpse is still considered either the property of the family, or the person themselves, and having sex with someone else's property is wrong without prior permission.
And yeah, legally we do give dead persons the right to decide what happens to their property. I think this should apply to a corpse as well. Which is why while I can understand and agree with people who are against grave robbing, I really don't get the controversy over stuff like 'necro card'.
And oh, I completely get you on the repulsion part. Like I get squicked out over sex toys that either look dead or are made out of dead animals. I just have trouble finding arguments when I remove the "ew" factor.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 3 points on 2015-04-10 18:19:20
"Cruising for strays" sounds like a good band name.
YesIloveDogsDags 2 points on 2015-04-10 02:31:33
Ideally, one would have a situation where they pursue sexual relations in a gradual manner with their own mates. Fencehopping ( trying to sex other people's animals without their knowledge) is pretty much universally frowned upon to varying degrees within the zoophile community. The best way to go about it is to own your own mate and go about it in a manner that is unforceful, gradual and consensual.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-04-10 03:08:33
I would say volunteer at a horse farm to gather lots of knowledge of Equines, and then save up some money (or get an additional part time job) and buy your own horse preferably boarding it on your own property for privacy reasons.
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-10 03:13:29
I'm asking genuinely here, is this method as optimal as can be?
SunTzuSaidThat 3 points on 2015-04-10 03:42:03
Define "optimal".
Define_It 2 points on 2015-04-10 03:43:06
Optimal (adjective): Most favorable or desirable; optimum.
I am a bot. If there are any issues, please contact my [master]. Want to learn how to use me? [Read this post].
SunTzuSaidThat 3 points on 2015-04-10 03:46:26
Gee, thanks, definition bot.
Dogsnogg 3 points on 2015-04-10 10:35:20
That's the funniest comment thread I've read in a long time.
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 03:57:22
I mean if you had control of the legal system, would you allow it any other way?
Dogsnogg 3 points on 2015-04-10 04:20:00
Personally, I'd make animal abuse laws stricter when it comes to sexual abuse, but eliminate so-called "sodomy" laws that make beastiality illegal.
I would also not make animal brothels legal, as that assumes that the animal would not be in control of weather they have sex or not, or with whom.
Animals deserve respect as sentient creatures, and this means that they should be allowed to engage in sexual behavior with anyone that they are interested in and receptive to it; but they should never be made to have sex if they aren't interested, and to be able to remove themselves from a sexual situation if they aren't comfortable.
kkllee 2 points on 2015-04-10 06:38:57
So we can agree on that regard, I did state that in the guidelines.
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 06:42:14
What about making a profit out of your intercourse, all things being responsible, if someone records himself having it, and then tries to sell it, is he breaking some boundary and why?
By stricter animal cruelty laws, you mean harsher punishments and broader definitions right?
Dogsnogg 4 points on 2015-04-10 09:59:02
The moment you exchange cash for sex or beastiality porn, you enter a very dangerous moral and legal territory. Once money is involved, the owner is incentivised to coerce their animal into having sex when it may not want to, because now there is a customer that has to be considered.
You also run into the social and legal aspects of beastiality - if someone recognizes you or your animal in the video, there's a good chance that they will come and try to stop you. This has the same ending as fencehopping, namely, the animal is in very real danger of being hurt or killed by law enforcement or those that see any sex with animals as abuse.
The boundary is very clear: RESPECT THE ANIMAL. Fucking their dead corpse, prostituting them out, selling porn of them, etc all disrespect a living, emotional, sentient animal.
It treats them as a thing to be used, not as an emotional equal worthy of being treated with empathy and love.
As for the laws, yes. Sex with animals is not inherently harmful to them, and should not be illegal if no harm is being done. But restraining the animal for the purposes of sex, causing it emotional distress, or abusing it physically should be treated the same as any other animal abuse and prosecuted as such.
That all said, this is a hypothetical argument, and I would be very against pushing the topic into the public discourse in real life. The world's not ready for us yet. Give it 50 years, and a lot of social shift in the general attitude about sex and the maturation of the "animals as sentient beings" scientific consensus, and we can start to work for some kind of "Zoo Civil Rights", but not until a lot of minds are a lot more open than they are right now.
To do so too early, will be to put us and all our animals' lives at risk of a witchhunt. That crosses the boundary: RESPECT THE ANIMAL.
kkllee 3 points on 2015-04-10 17:45:32
So you are more worried about the precedent and the possible cases of abuse, then I agree with you.
Ok, we just need a definition of respect we can agree on.
Dogsnogg 2 points on 2015-04-10 21:36:10
That's an easy one:
Make your animal's health, comfort, and safety your first priority.
If this means that you have to accept that your rights to legally have sex with animals must take a backseat to keeping your animals safe from being stolen or killed, then that is what you have to do. You may not like it, but your feelings are not the only consideration - you have to take into account what consequences your animals will suffer for your actions.
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-04-10 03:30:42
[deleted]
ulungudogsdogsdogsdogsdogs, and coyotes too I guess 3 points on 2015-04-10 08:26:02
Why are you still here?
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 08:59:24
Why are you asking that?
ulungudogsdogsdogsdogsdogs, and coyotes too I guess 3 points on 2015-04-10 09:57:02
Don't play dumb, you know exactly why.
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 17:45:55
Well you should know too, TV reverted the ban.
YesIloveDogsDags 3 points on 2015-04-10 19:39:07
While the ban might've been hastily enacted, please refrain from behavior that would cause us to ask for it again.
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-10 19:41:34
Please help me understand, what is this "forcing" that people speak about?
YesIloveDogsDags 3 points on 2015-04-10 19:45:26
Many of us have interpreted your repeated attempts at giving us guidelines as forcing them upon us. In your replies to these comments you have often been very forceful that people must support them. In a nutshell, that is a good bit of what people are objecting to.
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-10 20:32:10
Did I use that phrase? "You must support the guidelines." Besides I'm not planning on releasing another revision until the end of the month.
Who else would be interested in hearing them? besides I did ask if they wanted to see them before and they were neutral on the issue.
I just don't understand how a wall of text, implies you are being coerced into anything.
YesIloveDogsDags 3 points on 2015-04-10 21:17:06
You never directly said it, but the way you replied to comments made it look like you did. When people objected, you kept simply trying to coerce them into supporting your document, going insofar as to say that we were blatantly incorrect not to in your "on responses to the guidelines post" Point one in that post states something to that effect. "You guys are all being hypocritical so support my document and stop being wrong." Releasing another guideline revision would not be in anyone's best interest at this point in time, and I would like to politely ask you to refrain from it for a few weeks or months. Just take some time to get to know us and then we can perhaps move forward from there in a more productive manner than before.
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-11 04:41:16
My intention was to get discussion out of it, not forcing. My rationale was that if someone didn't want it to discuss it, then they will simply ignore it, not feel like they are somehow obligated to do something different if they didn't respond.
YesIloveDogsDags 2 points on 2015-04-11 05:09:39
Intention doesnt always equal result though. Your posts ended up being rather inflammatory and painted you as a rude prick, even though you may not be.
Dogsnogg 6 points on 2015-04-10 21:17:08
Listen, I think we all know you are a good person that really wants to help zoos and fight for our rights. And I think most of us appreciate that.
But you're scaring us, because many Zoophiles whom have been around a while, know that activism is dangerous. We have seen our friends have their beloved animals stolen, confiscated, and killed; and the zoophile thrown in jail for sexual abuse.
We don't want people to "fight for us" right now. The world is not ready for that yet. It will be, but now is not the time.
You're making these "Rules", without the input of those that have first-hand experience with the horrors that are faced when the topic gains media attention. Without fail, it has almost always resulted in the opposite of the intended effect - more laws making beastiality illegal, not fewer; more people being hurt and their animals taken, not less.
We know your heart is in the right place, but what you want to do won't help us. It has a very high chance of making our lives harder, and more dangerous for our animals.
I would recommend that you talk with us, get to know the community, try to understand our perspectives on the subjects that interest you. But if you really care for Zoophiles and their animals, you need to have a full knowledge of the problems we face and work to understand why we would be so against any kind of activism, be it legal or social.
We're secretive not because we want to be, but because we must be... for our animal's sake, not just our own.
YesIloveDogsDags 3 points on 2015-04-10 21:18:25
This is well worded and distills the problems down to an essence. Thank you.
Dogsnogg 2 points on 2015-04-10 21:39:27
Always glad to help. I sincerely believe that education and reasonable discourse is the only way we can change things; and understanding that someone like /u/kkllee is not our enemy and should be treated as a misguided ally will be more beneficial to us all.
Of all communities, Zoophiles should know that the carrot is more effective than the stick. :)
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-11 04:40:39
carrot?
Dogsnogg 1 point on 2015-04-11 05:31:41
It's an American idiom: Carrot and Stick meaning that sometimes you have to be forceful, and sometimes you have to be gentle if you want to change someone's behavior.
If being using the metaphorical "carrot" (rewarding for good behavior) doesn't work, then you can try using the "stick" (punishing for bad behavior).
In this case, I was making a joke, the subtext being that horses love carrots. You can use the carrot as reinforcement during horse training, but if the horse insists on being stubborn and don't accept the carrot. you have to use a stick (riding crop).
zoozooz 2 points on 2015-04-10 21:44:05
That didn't really sink in for me until recently when thinking about how it was for gay people a few decades ago. Sure, they were going to jail if found out, but assuming no blatant abuse of power happened, they'd get out after a while relatively unharmed and you could look forward to be reunited, because of human rights etc. It was bad, but somewhat manageable.
But an animal partner? He doesn't have human rights. The government can literally seize your partner like property. They can do with him what they want. They can just not tell you what they do with him and make sure you never see him again. They probably place him in some shelter where it's pure luck if he doesn't get killed without a second thought. He's not a human so nobody really cares.
That's a horrifying system if you think about it.
But still...
The world is not ready for that yet.
If zoophiles always only hide and - apart from the occasional oddball researcher - the only thing people ever get to know about sex with animals are the violent sexual abusers that get caught and reported in the media... How are you expecting the world to ever get ready?
Dogsnogg 2 points on 2015-04-10 21:55:30
Gradual social change. Simple as that.
The scientific community is coming to a consensus that animals are emotional, self-aware beings capable of understanding consequences and making intelligent decisions. This, combined with the movement towards repealing many "morality laws", will open the door for a discussion on zoophilia, once the legal framework is in place not just to protect LGBT people, but to protect anyone engaging in relations (emotional and sexual) with consent.
That argument will be the cornerstone for a debate about animals' ability to consent, which I am confident we will win.
The idea that the government should not be involved in regulating the sexual behavior between consenting adults is strong now, and growing stronger every day; as is the social idea of animals as sentient creatures worthy of rights under the law.
Once those attitudes are codified in a legal framework, it's a tiny jump to include human/animal sexual relationships in it. And once that happens, it will be our time to fight. And it will be a fight with casualties and horrible injustices - but we will have a century of legal precedence behind us then, which we do not currently have.
It's a wise tactician that knows when to fight, and when to flee. Right now, and likely for most of our lifetimes, keeping our heads down is the intelligent and most productive decision. And once the world is ready, we will make our social and legal case, and we will win.
zoozooz 1 point on 2015-04-10 22:10:00
This, combined with the movement towards repealing many "morality laws"
And when does that start? On the topic of sex with animals I'm not seeing it. First germany, then spain, probably denmark next... they're not repealing, they make new laws against it. I'm not sure why, because the proponents are mostly only notable for screaming until they get their will and what they say is completely unreasonable... but at the moment it seems to be working for them.
Scientific progress... Sure, I have little doubt it will help us. But only if it really happens. I think a huge step would be to get more zoophiles to volunteer for studies. When Miletski gets questionnaires from 93 zoophiles, that's nice, but what I's like to see are thousands of zoophiles getting their anonymity guaranteed to volunteer to get studied themselves and get the physical and mental health status of their animals studied. And then thousands more...
Dogsnogg 1 point on 2015-04-10 22:38:06
You are right, beastiality laws are being enacted more at the present. The same thing happened with the sodomy laws at the beginning of the LGBT's civil right's movement, and those laws were only struck down nationwide in 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas.
Right now, those laws are politically easy to champion because the social climate still sees beastiality as immoral and animals as little more than property. Fighting this directly will only make the issue more polarized, and not in our favor.
But I agree, there is a lot we can do to improve this social attitude, through education and discussion and making well-reasoned arguments strong enough not to fail when attacked by critics waving the flag of moral outrage.
And to do this, we must have facts on our side - hence the need for consensus and support from the behavorial and anthropological sciences. We must also not give into responding emotionally and treating our critics as "The Enemy", as long as their concerns are rational and not based on moral outrage or religious bigotry.
As our society moves away from using law to enforce the behavior of people, we can take advantage of scientific consensus, dwindling religious influence in politics, and social awareness of the need to keep the government out of our bedrooms, to build our argument and take it to a legal conclusion.
I'd love to see more Zoophiles volunteering for such research as you've mentioned, but the real change that we can make now, is by working towards acceptance of towards zoophiles through social education and respectful conversation; not by trying to force the world to accept us. That will backfire, and we'll be worse off than we are now, if we try to fight when public opinion is against us.
Dogsnogg 2 points on 2015-04-10 22:08:51
I'd also point out that things were much worse than you realize. It's only been a few decades since things like police harassment, lobotomies, chemical and physical castration, extended jail sentences and violent "rehabilitation" were the consequences faced by homosexuals in America.
It took a lot of time, and many lives before society came to view such things as unacceptable, and we have and will suffer similarly.
But the fight for our rights is not likely ours. Our job is to make the next generation's struggle as easy as we can.
zoozooz 2 points on 2015-04-10 22:18:08
Well, I'm relatively young so I do view the last few decades as even fewer decades. But yes, the savagery people seem to consider to be so far in the past is also horrifyingly near to our times... The time when religions did hold absolute power in and around europe... The time when actual slavery was a thing in the US. etc...
The time when people considered factory farming to be an acceptable means to produce food...
Dogsnogg 1 point on 2015-04-10 22:43:43
I do see a time in the near future in which we will make the change to a mostly vegetarian society, as meat substitutes mature and cultural eating habits change with the realization and recognition of animal sentience.
I absolutely love my bacon and steak, but I think we're all becoming more aware of the ecological cost and ethical compromises that meat production requires.
But we still test chemicals and drugs on animals, so those days are quite a ways off, I think.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-04-11 03:54:31
I don't think we'll be vegetarian so much as entomotarian, or insect-eaters. Insects are much more ecologically friendly than traditional meat sources, they're even more 'green' than a lot of vegetarian foods.
Yearningmice 4 points on 2015-04-10 11:00:16
While this is an important topic, I have down voted it due to the personalities involved as it doesn't strike me that it will be a fruitful conversation.
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-04-10 11:51:56
[deleted]
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-04-10 14:02:36
kkllee if you HAD to have sex with a non-human species what species would it be?
kkllee -1 points on 2015-04-10 17:40:37
Whatever is safest.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-04-10 17:44:47
I'm asking you what specific SPECIES you would have sex with besides humans if you could not mate with humans.
kkllee 0 points on 2015-04-10 17:47:55
That's what I said, whatever is safest for both parties.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2015-04-10 19:54:41
Stop stone-walling and tell me what species you are attracted too. I do believe you are a closet zoo.
kkllee -1 points on 2015-04-10 20:29:32
I don't have a proper preference and I would never lie about it, although I can tell you about some rationale that even though it wouldn't pass to real life, could easily be considered some sexual fantasy, except it doesn't turn me on.
DanielArtaxesGay|Furry|Libertarian|Zoosexual 2 points on 2015-04-10 15:45:00
You don't seem to understand this is about love not just sex. There are no rules in love and war.
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-10 17:40:12
They are rules for war: they are the geneva conventions, there are rules of love is called age of consent
DanielArtaxesGay|Furry|Libertarian|Zoosexual 2 points on 2015-04-10 21:48:27
Geneva convention only applies to looser; and I think we would all agree no puppies.
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-11 03:02:09
What qualifies as a puppy? The geneva conventions are supposedly universal.
DanielArtaxesGay|Furry|Libertarian|Zoosexual 1 point on 2015-04-11 04:40:16
either your an idiot or are missing the point/joke so I will spell it out. There should be no rules or laws to being a zoosexual. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what the limits are. As a libertarian I am against new laws (and most current ones) as a principle. The more specific you get the more problems. No Rules. No Laws. Just love.
kkllee 1 point on 2015-04-11 04:42:42
No laws is more of an anarchist position rather than a libertarian one.
Not only that, but it pretty much doesn't apply for food or drugs.
DanielArtaxesGay|Furry|Libertarian|Zoosexual 1 point on 2015-04-11 13:29:12
Please read what I write if you are going to reply. I said most laws.
/r/zoophilia archive
I would say it depends on what one is trying to look for. Be it bestiality porn, mating videos, possible tutorials, or maybe the mechanics of it all. I always run a VPN and incognito window for stuff like that, though :P. What kinda stuff are you trying to search(in more detail)? I'd like to think I am pretty good at forming good search queries :)
I'm interested, are responsible zoos only allowed to have sex with animals they own? Is it preferable if zoos avoid penetration at all?
lol Maybe I misunderstood the original question. I was multitasking, so sorry if my answer did not help in other ways. As for what you have stated, I would say it is a bit of a controversial subject and a bit more of a case by case sorta thing. There are many factors that play into it all, just like factors that would play into the same sort of thing with people. I can only say that I personally solely have sex with my dog, and I do not penetrate him obviously. But it all depends.
Avoid causing harm at all costs. Don't be an asshole, use your brain, use your heart. Be knowledgeable about your species of interest. Believe in the fact that every zoo is an ambassador, and put that idea into practice. Don't get yourself on the wrong side of the law.
Within those confines, use whatever way you want.
I don't think it can be generalized that way.
Why not?
We have acceptable ways to ask for borrowings, ways that we can write on specific situations, for instance, why should this be different?
By "borrowings" do you mean "loans"? Like from a bank? I'm not totally understanding your writing, sorry.
If I'm understanding this the way I think you meant it (please correct me), you're asking me why I think getting a mortgage and having sex with a sex partner should be different in a social, ethical, legal, practical sense. Is that right?
What I mean is that everything with a legal consequence can be regulated efficiently.
tell that to the US Government
Here's some food for thought, if I understand what you're getting at.
Even if you can attempt to regulate something with "legal consequences" (the term could use defining) like the particulars of a sex act, should a system do so? Will these regulations be enforceable? If so, who enforces them, and how? What are the punishments for failing to follow the regulations? Even if such a system were to exist, what makes you think it would be efficient?
Don't get him started. Seriously… don't.
Oh, I started long ago.
dude, no. we're not talking about your rules any more.
That isn't the point, basically we have a bunch of zoophiles who really want to have sex withs some animals, my question is: what would be their options under a system governed by responsible zoo's? what would be the acceptable channels he can achieve his goals?
I have a very simple answer to that:
Be responsible enough to get a good job to support yourself and your animals.
Get a place with privacy and plenty of space for you and your animals to live and have sex safely.
Build a relationship with your animals that allows for sex to be a positive and rewarding experience for you both.
That's it. No need for a "governed system" to regulate anything.
The problem with your questions are that they treat the animal like something to be used for sex. If you replace "Animals" with "Women", your questions would be outrageously offensive.
You don't treat animals like living sex toys. They deserve care, comfort, and respect. Almost no situation in which you keep animals for the purposes of sex does this.
You don't whore out the ones you love.
Try to look it trough this lens, they are laws that permit physical assault to go unpunished if they were preced by verbal assault, like if someone starts throwing racial and sexual slurs, and the victim gets pissed and punches them.
One could argue that we don't need governance on such issues, that is just between the two subjects, but if it comes between getting arrested and getting away, then defining such boundaries such that they cannot be misinterpreted, is important
Perhaps in Mexico, this is true. But in America, we have laws against making verbal threats (assault) and physical attacks (battery).
For example, if I were calling someone names, using racial slurs, insulting their mother, etc. The person I am abusing cannot hit me for it. The moment I make a threat, though, like saying "I will kick your ass!", I'm guilty of assault.
But the person cannot hit me for it. If he does, he is guilty of battery. The only time someone can legally hit another, is if I have made a physical threat, like taking a swing at them.
But I think you're missing the point here. This isn't about me, it's about my animals, whom I want to protect. My personal desire for legal protection must take a backseat to my animal's welfare.
If I were to go out in the middle of the street, and shout "I FUCK MY HORSE!", legally, there is nothing that can be done about it.
But then I have to worry about someone following me home, sneaking onto my property at night, and illegally stealing my horse. Or calling the HSUS (Humane Society), who would open an investigation and do their damndest to take my dogs (and probably euthanize them because they are "unadoptable" due to the supposed sexual abuse).
You focus so hard on the legal aspects of the subject, that you forget the social aspect. There are many, many people out there that would use any means (legal or illegal), to stop what they think of as abuse.
So yes, while I would love to see legal protections in place for zoophiles, the reality is that right now, fighting for them would put the animals that I love, in very serious danger.
There is a huge movement right now towards the repeal of so-called "morality laws", many of which are used to prosecute beastiality. This is already happening, and if we keep our heads down and our animals safe, we can enjoy the benefits of that movement without putting our animals' lives at risk.
This is a long, slow process, but it will happen in time. We probably won't see the legalization of beastiality in our lifetimes, so we must think longer-term and let society come around to our point of view.
There will be a time we can stand up for ourselves, but that day is a long ways away, and trying to force the issue now will result in harsher laws instead.
Activism would hurt us far more than it would help, and I don't want to see Zoos or their animals get hurt, especially for something that I feel is inevitable anyways.
It looks like you're asking how to get another person to lend you their pet for sex???
You don't sound like a narc at all.
Well, we can agree that brothers should not exist ever, but then zoophilia is restricted to pet-owner relationships.
What are you trying to accomplish? You're not going to get people to say "ye fencehopping is a-okay in all cases ever". I know you're not a zoophile, so I doubt you're looking for validation.
Also I get that second languages are tough, but your replies don't even correspond to what they're replying to and it's difficult to follow what you're saying.
Ok, so the answer is yes, then the only possible acceptable intercourse is pet-owner.
I think he intended to say "brothels", as in legal animal prostitution.
It depends on what you're looking for.
If you're just looking to fuck an animal and don't care about their welfare, there are countries where this is legal, but prone to massive animal abuse.
But a pet/owner relationship is the only option currently for those that wish to engage in beastiality, but don't want to support abuse.
And in that context, getting to know a fellow zoophile who trusts you enough to let you have sex with their animals is the only way a person that does not own an animal, can reasonably find one to have sex with.
But that takes time and a lot of trust between you and the owner, so finding such a person and forming such a relationship is extremely difficult.
Even fencehopping or cruising for strays isn't considered ethical, as the animal is often euthanized or relocated if it's found that someone has had sex with them.
What about using wildlife or dead bodies, those are considered unethical, but I'm interested in the why.
Wildlife has an instinctive fear of humans, so you'd have to catch and restrain an animal, which goes against consensual ethic.
However, if you're out in the woods and a deer comes up to you, and lets you fuck it without any coercion, and as long as the animal is free to leave the situation, I don't see a problem with that.
I'd envy the hell out of you, actually!
As for dead bodies.. ew. But once an animal is dead, it's no longer zoophilia, it's necrophilia, and you'll have to talk to somebody else about the ethics behind that, because the topic makes me queasy.
Not all feral wildlife is afraid of humans. I've had feral deer walk up to me close enough for them to sniff my hands. Lots of videos of feral horses going right up to people. There are also cave paintings of people fucking animals.
Going out on a limb, I'd say that dead (human) bodies are considered unethical because people feel about them as if the soul is still attached, but can't do anything to resist you.
While I don't agree with this view, and would happily put necrophiles third in line for my body after medical research and organ donation, I think it is how people view bodies.
Animal bodies, now that's slightly more complex. Just consider leather fetishism — leather dildos and face masks in particular. Totally legal, widely tolerated, creeps me right out.
Honestly I don't really get what's so awful about necrophilia. I mean, I get it in the sense that the body is owned by someone else, but that's about it. To be fair, I'm not religious and not spiritual, so I'm sure I'm missing something. XD
I think it's considered unethical because we associate a corpse with the identity of the individual that was alive before. Things done to a person's corpse are remembered as though they were done to the person themselves while alive. This is why governments issue posthumous awards and apologies to people that have long passed on (Alan Turing, for example).
Our society holds an belief that the memories of a person and their relationships and accomplishments, are as important as the person themselves, and that extends to the treatment of their body after death. We even make laws against defiling a corpse, as it is important to society that we respect what we believe to be the dead's wishes, including what happens to their corpse.
I'll fully admit my personal bias, though. I just cannot get over the feeling of repulsion about necrophilia. I don't think I cannot make a rational argument about it at this time, as I have not explored the topic in depth enough to build a case for or against it.
I kinda get that? But I still end up thinking of it more as 'vandalism' in a way. Like the corpse is still considered either the property of the family, or the person themselves, and having sex with someone else's property is wrong without prior permission.
And yeah, legally we do give dead persons the right to decide what happens to their property. I think this should apply to a corpse as well. Which is why while I can understand and agree with people who are against grave robbing, I really don't get the controversy over stuff like 'necro card'.
And oh, I completely get you on the repulsion part. Like I get squicked out over sex toys that either look dead or are made out of dead animals. I just have trouble finding arguments when I remove the "ew" factor.
"Cruising for strays" sounds like a good band name.
Ideally, one would have a situation where they pursue sexual relations in a gradual manner with their own mates. Fencehopping ( trying to sex other people's animals without their knowledge) is pretty much universally frowned upon to varying degrees within the zoophile community. The best way to go about it is to own your own mate and go about it in a manner that is unforceful, gradual and consensual.
I would say volunteer at a horse farm to gather lots of knowledge of Equines, and then save up some money (or get an additional part time job) and buy your own horse preferably boarding it on your own property for privacy reasons.
I'm asking genuinely here, is this method as optimal as can be?
Define "optimal".
Optimal (adjective): Most favorable or desirable; optimum.
I am a bot. If there are any issues, please contact my [master].
Want to learn how to use me? [Read this post].
Gee, thanks, definition bot.
That's the funniest comment thread I've read in a long time.
I mean if you had control of the legal system, would you allow it any other way?
Personally, I'd make animal abuse laws stricter when it comes to sexual abuse, but eliminate so-called "sodomy" laws that make beastiality illegal.
I would also not make animal brothels legal, as that assumes that the animal would not be in control of weather they have sex or not, or with whom.
Animals deserve respect as sentient creatures, and this means that they should be allowed to engage in sexual behavior with anyone that they are interested in and receptive to it; but they should never be made to have sex if they aren't interested, and to be able to remove themselves from a sexual situation if they aren't comfortable.
So we can agree on that regard, I did state that in the guidelines.
What about making a profit out of your intercourse, all things being responsible, if someone records himself having it, and then tries to sell it, is he breaking some boundary and why?
By stricter animal cruelty laws, you mean harsher punishments and broader definitions right?
The moment you exchange cash for sex or beastiality porn, you enter a very dangerous moral and legal territory. Once money is involved, the owner is incentivised to coerce their animal into having sex when it may not want to, because now there is a customer that has to be considered.
You also run into the social and legal aspects of beastiality - if someone recognizes you or your animal in the video, there's a good chance that they will come and try to stop you. This has the same ending as fencehopping, namely, the animal is in very real danger of being hurt or killed by law enforcement or those that see any sex with animals as abuse.
The boundary is very clear: RESPECT THE ANIMAL. Fucking their dead corpse, prostituting them out, selling porn of them, etc all disrespect a living, emotional, sentient animal.
It treats them as a thing to be used, not as an emotional equal worthy of being treated with empathy and love.
As for the laws, yes. Sex with animals is not inherently harmful to them, and should not be illegal if no harm is being done. But restraining the animal for the purposes of sex, causing it emotional distress, or abusing it physically should be treated the same as any other animal abuse and prosecuted as such.
That all said, this is a hypothetical argument, and I would be very against pushing the topic into the public discourse in real life. The world's not ready for us yet. Give it 50 years, and a lot of social shift in the general attitude about sex and the maturation of the "animals as sentient beings" scientific consensus, and we can start to work for some kind of "Zoo Civil Rights", but not until a lot of minds are a lot more open than they are right now.
To do so too early, will be to put us and all our animals' lives at risk of a witchhunt. That crosses the boundary: RESPECT THE ANIMAL.
So you are more worried about the precedent and the possible cases of abuse, then I agree with you.
Ok, we just need a definition of respect we can agree on.
That's an easy one:
Make your animal's health, comfort, and safety your first priority.
If this means that you have to accept that your rights to legally have sex with animals must take a backseat to keeping your animals safe from being stolen or killed, then that is what you have to do. You may not like it, but your feelings are not the only consideration - you have to take into account what consequences your animals will suffer for your actions.
[deleted]
Why are you still here?
Why are you asking that?
Don't play dumb, you know exactly why.
Well you should know too, TV reverted the ban.
While the ban might've been hastily enacted, please refrain from behavior that would cause us to ask for it again.
Please help me understand, what is this "forcing" that people speak about?
Many of us have interpreted your repeated attempts at giving us guidelines as forcing them upon us. In your replies to these comments you have often been very forceful that people must support them. In a nutshell, that is a good bit of what people are objecting to.
Did I use that phrase? "You must support the guidelines." Besides I'm not planning on releasing another revision until the end of the month.
Who else would be interested in hearing them? besides I did ask if they wanted to see them before and they were neutral on the issue.
I just don't understand how a wall of text, implies you are being coerced into anything.
You never directly said it, but the way you replied to comments made it look like you did. When people objected, you kept simply trying to coerce them into supporting your document, going insofar as to say that we were blatantly incorrect not to in your "on responses to the guidelines post" Point one in that post states something to that effect. "You guys are all being hypocritical so support my document and stop being wrong." Releasing another guideline revision would not be in anyone's best interest at this point in time, and I would like to politely ask you to refrain from it for a few weeks or months. Just take some time to get to know us and then we can perhaps move forward from there in a more productive manner than before.
My intention was to get discussion out of it, not forcing. My rationale was that if someone didn't want it to discuss it, then they will simply ignore it, not feel like they are somehow obligated to do something different if they didn't respond.
Intention doesnt always equal result though. Your posts ended up being rather inflammatory and painted you as a rude prick, even though you may not be.
Listen, I think we all know you are a good person that really wants to help zoos and fight for our rights. And I think most of us appreciate that.
But you're scaring us, because many Zoophiles whom have been around a while, know that activism is dangerous. We have seen our friends have their beloved animals stolen, confiscated, and killed; and the zoophile thrown in jail for sexual abuse.
We don't want people to "fight for us" right now. The world is not ready for that yet. It will be, but now is not the time.
You're making these "Rules", without the input of those that have first-hand experience with the horrors that are faced when the topic gains media attention. Without fail, it has almost always resulted in the opposite of the intended effect - more laws making beastiality illegal, not fewer; more people being hurt and their animals taken, not less.
We know your heart is in the right place, but what you want to do won't help us. It has a very high chance of making our lives harder, and more dangerous for our animals.
I would recommend that you talk with us, get to know the community, try to understand our perspectives on the subjects that interest you. But if you really care for Zoophiles and their animals, you need to have a full knowledge of the problems we face and work to understand why we would be so against any kind of activism, be it legal or social.
We're secretive not because we want to be, but because we must be... for our animal's sake, not just our own.
This is well worded and distills the problems down to an essence. Thank you.
Always glad to help. I sincerely believe that education and reasonable discourse is the only way we can change things; and understanding that someone like /u/kkllee is not our enemy and should be treated as a misguided ally will be more beneficial to us all.
Of all communities, Zoophiles should know that the carrot is more effective than the stick. :)
carrot?
It's an American idiom: Carrot and Stick meaning that sometimes you have to be forceful, and sometimes you have to be gentle if you want to change someone's behavior.
If being using the metaphorical "carrot" (rewarding for good behavior) doesn't work, then you can try using the "stick" (punishing for bad behavior).
In this case, I was making a joke, the subtext being that horses love carrots. You can use the carrot as reinforcement during horse training, but if the horse insists on being stubborn and don't accept the carrot. you have to use a stick (riding crop).
That didn't really sink in for me until recently when thinking about how it was for gay people a few decades ago. Sure, they were going to jail if found out, but assuming no blatant abuse of power happened, they'd get out after a while relatively unharmed and you could look forward to be reunited, because of human rights etc. It was bad, but somewhat manageable.
But an animal partner? He doesn't have human rights. The government can literally seize your partner like property. They can do with him what they want. They can just not tell you what they do with him and make sure you never see him again. They probably place him in some shelter where it's pure luck if he doesn't get killed without a second thought. He's not a human so nobody really cares.
That's a horrifying system if you think about it.
But still...
If zoophiles always only hide and - apart from the occasional oddball researcher - the only thing people ever get to know about sex with animals are the violent sexual abusers that get caught and reported in the media... How are you expecting the world to ever get ready?
Gradual social change. Simple as that.
The scientific community is coming to a consensus that animals are emotional, self-aware beings capable of understanding consequences and making intelligent decisions. This, combined with the movement towards repealing many "morality laws", will open the door for a discussion on zoophilia, once the legal framework is in place not just to protect LGBT people, but to protect anyone engaging in relations (emotional and sexual) with consent.
That argument will be the cornerstone for a debate about animals' ability to consent, which I am confident we will win.
The idea that the government should not be involved in regulating the sexual behavior between consenting adults is strong now, and growing stronger every day; as is the social idea of animals as sentient creatures worthy of rights under the law.
Once those attitudes are codified in a legal framework, it's a tiny jump to include human/animal sexual relationships in it. And once that happens, it will be our time to fight. And it will be a fight with casualties and horrible injustices - but we will have a century of legal precedence behind us then, which we do not currently have.
It's a wise tactician that knows when to fight, and when to flee. Right now, and likely for most of our lifetimes, keeping our heads down is the intelligent and most productive decision. And once the world is ready, we will make our social and legal case, and we will win.
And when does that start? On the topic of sex with animals I'm not seeing it. First germany, then spain, probably denmark next... they're not repealing, they make new laws against it. I'm not sure why, because the proponents are mostly only notable for screaming until they get their will and what they say is completely unreasonable... but at the moment it seems to be working for them.
Scientific progress... Sure, I have little doubt it will help us. But only if it really happens. I think a huge step would be to get more zoophiles to volunteer for studies. When Miletski gets questionnaires from 93 zoophiles, that's nice, but what I's like to see are thousands of zoophiles getting their anonymity guaranteed to volunteer to get studied themselves and get the physical and mental health status of their animals studied. And then thousands more...
You are right, beastiality laws are being enacted more at the present. The same thing happened with the sodomy laws at the beginning of the LGBT's civil right's movement, and those laws were only struck down nationwide in 2003, when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas.
Right now, those laws are politically easy to champion because the social climate still sees beastiality as immoral and animals as little more than property. Fighting this directly will only make the issue more polarized, and not in our favor.
But I agree, there is a lot we can do to improve this social attitude, through education and discussion and making well-reasoned arguments strong enough not to fail when attacked by critics waving the flag of moral outrage.
And to do this, we must have facts on our side - hence the need for consensus and support from the behavorial and anthropological sciences. We must also not give into responding emotionally and treating our critics as "The Enemy", as long as their concerns are rational and not based on moral outrage or religious bigotry.
As our society moves away from using law to enforce the behavior of people, we can take advantage of scientific consensus, dwindling religious influence in politics, and social awareness of the need to keep the government out of our bedrooms, to build our argument and take it to a legal conclusion.
I'd love to see more Zoophiles volunteering for such research as you've mentioned, but the real change that we can make now, is by working towards acceptance of towards zoophiles through social education and respectful conversation; not by trying to force the world to accept us. That will backfire, and we'll be worse off than we are now, if we try to fight when public opinion is against us.
I'd also point out that things were much worse than you realize. It's only been a few decades since things like police harassment, lobotomies, chemical and physical castration, extended jail sentences and violent "rehabilitation" were the consequences faced by homosexuals in America.
It took a lot of time, and many lives before society came to view such things as unacceptable, and we have and will suffer similarly.
But the fight for our rights is not likely ours. Our job is to make the next generation's struggle as easy as we can.
Well, I'm relatively young so I do view the last few decades as even fewer decades. But yes, the savagery people seem to consider to be so far in the past is also horrifyingly near to our times... The time when religions did hold absolute power in and around europe... The time when actual slavery was a thing in the US. etc...
The time when people considered factory farming to be an acceptable means to produce food...
I do see a time in the near future in which we will make the change to a mostly vegetarian society, as meat substitutes mature and cultural eating habits change with the realization and recognition of animal sentience.
I absolutely love my bacon and steak, but I think we're all becoming more aware of the ecological cost and ethical compromises that meat production requires.
But we still test chemicals and drugs on animals, so those days are quite a ways off, I think.
I don't think we'll be vegetarian so much as entomotarian, or insect-eaters. Insects are much more ecologically friendly than traditional meat sources, they're even more 'green' than a lot of vegetarian foods.
While this is an important topic, I have down voted it due to the personalities involved as it doesn't strike me that it will be a fruitful conversation.
[deleted]
kkllee if you HAD to have sex with a non-human species what species would it be?
Whatever is safest.
I'm asking you what specific SPECIES you would have sex with besides humans if you could not mate with humans.
That's what I said, whatever is safest for both parties.
Stop stone-walling and tell me what species you are attracted too. I do believe you are a closet zoo.
I don't have a proper preference and I would never lie about it, although I can tell you about some rationale that even though it wouldn't pass to real life, could easily be considered some sexual fantasy, except it doesn't turn me on.
You don't seem to understand this is about love not just sex. There are no rules in love and war.
They are rules for war: they are the geneva conventions, there are rules of love is called age of consent
Geneva convention only applies to looser; and I think we would all agree no puppies.
What qualifies as a puppy? The geneva conventions are supposedly universal.
either your an idiot or are missing the point/joke so I will spell it out. There should be no rules or laws to being a zoosexual. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what the limits are. As a libertarian I am against new laws (and most current ones) as a principle. The more specific you get the more problems. No Rules. No Laws. Just love.
No laws is more of an anarchist position rather than a libertarian one.
Not only that, but it pretty much doesn't apply for food or drugs.
Please read what I write if you are going to reply. I said most laws.
No more guidelines, kkllee. Please stop.
If you want to know why, refer to this post. It explains perfectly.