So, we knew this was coming and I cannot imagine any governor not signing this into law, except possibly to prove a point that "the gay" is going to let us boink animals.... anyhow....
I thought the interesting part of the story was the reason all this came to a head... so to speak...
I've been told so often that keeping quiet will protect us zoos better than anything else. But here is what I see, this guy who was caught had got off with "minimal" punishment. There was not a signal bit of support, evidence, or anything that could be brought to bear to say he hurt anyone. So why not enact a new law that only perverts would be affected by? To me, it seems our silence here has spoken plainly about how we feel about ourselves and has led us to NJ becoming illegal. It's not going to change much except I hope as a wake up call to those who thought they'd get in under the radar.
Stay safe NJ, and don't get caught.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2015-05-20 23:35:23
You´re not satisfied with the strategy of keeping a very low profile, so what else do you propose? I´m from Germany, we have an organisation openly advocating zoophilia...and yet, no real differences in the public opinion towards animal-human relationships are noticable. Personally, I don´t think it is dependent on being silent about it or vocalising our demands as loud as we can, we still will be seen as sex freaks by Joe Average; maybe even more if we are loud as f**ing hell.
Another thing that got my attention here: We as zoophiles insist on the fact that mature animals are not comparable to kids as they have a developed sexuality. But the guy featured in the linked article took advantage of immature animals and noone bats an eye here? Even if no harm was done, as a zoo you simply DON´T have sex with animal kids. Actions like these always make me wonder if our highly elaborate defense arguments only serve as decoys when in a discussion, but all our rules, codes of conduct and other stuff adressing the morality of zoophilia aren´t worth the paper they´re written on when pants are unzipped. "Penis erectus non compos mentis", a erect penis isn´t made of thoughts, as the Romans said...and that´s what the public gets to swallow: Zeta rules everyone cites when it comes in handy, but no one obeys to when opportunities arise.
In the end, it´s all about the image the zoos have in public; no one will ever aid us in our struggle if we insist on pointing out Joe Average´s mistakes, but turn blind when it comes to our own.
Yes, I´m a zoo. An exclusive hetero horse zoo, to be precise. But I have no sympathy for someone abusing animal infants for his own pleasure,regardless of harm involved or not. And it´s always those people like the one mentioned in the article, acting not according to any zoo codex that make it to the media and forcing the state to act and issue new laws. Always remember: online animal porn, fencehoppers and other people acting irresponsibly brought us here...do the math. We can do pro zoo propaganda as long as we want, it still will be useless when the antithesis of our propaganda is only two clicks away for everyone to see.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 5 points on 2015-05-21 00:06:40
Zeta-Verein could do a lot more if people donated something to them... They even got someone in the government to admit they could probably overturn the law if it got to germany's high court: but that is not cheap, and zoos are notoriously paranoid about donating to causes with a tracable cashstream.
Bitcoin could solve that issue, but few want to jump through that hoop.
...and so you get zeta-verein, a great but largely powerless attempt to fight a foe nearly 10 times their size.
Also. the opposition may only be two clicks away, but so are we. If we pretend not to exist, don't fool yourself: we have already lost, the hole IS getting deeper, and our age will come to an end. We are living on borrowed time
ursusem 2 points on 2015-05-21 01:41:35
Either it is morally acceptable to have sex with animals or it isn't. Truth is truth. Regardless of how much public resistance there is- truth is still truth. It is my belief that truth always wins. Especially if the battle is fought courageously. But we definitely need to get our act together and make this our mission if we want to not be classified as criminals. I am not a criminal. I also have zoophilic feelings about animals. It is the truth that having sex outside one's species causes harm to no one. We shouldn't allow them to bully us into a position in society where we don't deserve to be!
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-05-21 02:51:13
Morality by nature is not truth. Truth is hard fact. Morality is not hard fact, and thus, morality is not truth. Morality is relative to the individual.
That said, in a country like germany where they claim morality has no place in the legal structure, you'd think they would've thought this over a bit better.
The US also has a constitution and several court precedents that could be used to prevent passage of anti-zoo bills, but no one is both brave enough AND wealthy enough to stand up. Sad state of affairs. The supreme court is booked to eternity with other "more important" matters and only they have the power to make this right. You think they'll see our case? Not likely.
I'm working on setting up a zoo charity to alleviate some of this, as I mentioned in some earlier posts. But it's a ways from being ready as it must be truly anonymous for both donors and administrators.
ursusem 2 points on 2015-05-21 04:15:37
We must have a different idea about what morality means. Moral just means "not causing harm." It is possible for morality to be fact. Because if an action tangibly harms a sentient being, then this harm is a fact and it is a fact that that action is therefore immoral.
We should only create restrictive laws if there is good reason to do so.
I think people need to start getting more brave about this issue. I know we have a lot stacked against us, sadly. I think the best thing we can do is just fight their arguments. Write books. Conduct scientific experiments and on and on. Having money, I think could help us too. I would be willing to help us financially.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-05-21 04:24:01
I mean no offense, but are you a native english speaker? Because yeah I agree with that being a factaul thing but I've never seen that definition of morality... Usually morality in english is a personal thing that may/may not intertwine with religious values...
I agree on all the other points though. Particularly the money one. Having facts is all well and good but it takes money to get them "peer reviewed" ... I am working on this but it's an uphill battle... Not that I expected anything less. ;)
ursusem 2 points on 2015-05-21 04:44:32
I'm speaking more on what I believe that morality should mean. That seems to me to be all that really should matter in the creation of laws. I could also be a little naive about the subject in general. But this is the gist of what I'm currently understanding about it :/ Sorry if it isn't completely versed in whatever history. Of course morality is not something which exists in the physical world- it is a human concept.
I support you in your efforts to get us peer reviewed... I would be willing to help in any way... I will also try my very best to be a part of the solution as well as much as I possibly can be! Just saying!
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-06-01 12:47:56
I agree with your definition of morality. In my formative years, the pagan code of "If it causes no harm, you're free to do as you like" was the one that made most sense to me, much more so than the 10 commandments or the legal system.
But morality is relative, and the biggest evidence I have for that are all of the things that people cite for why they don't want to believe in moral relativity, all the evils done by people who refuse to call themselves evil.
For some people, disobedience to power and anything they find disgusting are also inherently immoral.
ursusem 1 point on 2015-06-01 17:26:12
But how can something be evil if it doesn't tangibly harm anyone or anything? I think morality really isn't relative. The thing is that people like to think that their bigotry is the "moral right way." Why attempt to control that which harms none? You are automatically a freedom hater if you have that view and I believe that to be anti-freedom is an evil. And you say there are "evils done by people who refuse to call themselves evil." Like what? Can you give some examples on this?
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-06-01 18:03:35
But how can something be evil if it doesn't tangibly harm anyone or anything?
My ideal society would be something like Ian Bank's "Culture", where the only rules are "No permanent killing, no reading people's minds, no interfering with the development of children".
Like what? Can you give some examples on this?
Every act of war, especially when it leads to acts of terror ("Shock and awe") and torture ("Enhanced interrogation") for the sake of national security. Remember, the soldiers (even those that do these things, which I'd expect to be a minority) are put on a pedestal as heroes.
Every time that someone ignores the sentience and free will of others with the phrase "They don't count — they're not human!", both when they are human and it's racism, and (I believe) when they're not human and they're seen as just meat or leather.
Then there is taxes. There are both those who regard taxes as theft while at the same time others regard it's avoidance as theft. They can't both be right.
ursusem 2 points on 2015-05-21 01:12:48
I see all of the points that you make here and I'm glad that there are zoophiles strong and brave enough to be able to question their sexuality. I think it demonstrates good character.
That being said, I don't believe that we zoophiles are in favor of the person's actions if the person had sex with baby animals. I think at the time being, zoophiles are concerned mainly with the fact that the publicity has the focus of showing people that in general it is wrong to have sex with animals. The problem is that these stories help non-zoos to believe that zoophilia in general is inherently wrong/immoral. That is the big problem. Yes, it is wrong for that person to have sex with baby animals. Although, I would say, that pedophilia is understudied in ways. I'm not certain that every child who has sex is necessarily significantly harmed by it. I need to research the topic more myself in order to know this for sure. No position can be adequately argued for or against until we have taken an honest and thorough look at the topics at hand. There is a lot of hysteria in our world culture these days. Not a lot of people have an ability to analyze issues of morality using a rational and sober mind.
Regardless of animal porn, fencehoppers etc moral philosophers still need to makes decisions based on rational argument. In other words, it makes no sense to say, "Look over here- I found someone doing this really sadistic sexual thing to this animal. And look at how much the animal is suffering." Okay, that is a situation where one person did an immoral thing. The thing involved sex. Now let's be rational. If we were to put a ban on all and any sex occurring between a human and a non-human animal we would be discriminating against a minority sexuality. We would be removing some people's freedoms. We may even be removing some freedoms of the non-human animals (namely the freedom to have sex with humans). And then what happens if let's say, a for instance male animal jumps onto a human who was bent over. Maybe this human is "raped" by the animal. Maybe this human had no clothes on because she/he was preparing to take a bath or was going to be skinny dipping in a pool or lake. Now that person is to go to jail for 10 years or be fined thousands of dollars? Think, people. Think. So if a human willfully, intentionally got naked in front of an animal and the animal then jumped on their back and the human felt gladly about that what is the problem with that? Why must that be punished especially in such a severe way? Please provide a rational argument why it would be appropriate to punish this! That is where the problem ultimately leads us and modern legislators are not doing the hard work necessary to satisfy these questions. Everyone is just going on moral repugnance and mob rule. The truth cannot be unseen for too long, is my theory. Probably zoophiles will need to help people see what they are averse to seeing.
I think the reasons why people feel so opposed to zoophilia is due to several different factors that are hot button issues today currently. I could begin to go into those factors but they are numerous! And that is a lot of what actually stands against the acceptance of zoophilia. If we can tackle the roots of the opposition- those factors- then we stand a chance.
virtua 1 point on 2015-05-22 00:27:45
I don't believe that we zoophiles are in favor of the person's actions if the person had sex with baby animals.
I was under the impression that one of the reasons people argued in favor of animal-human sex is because animals aren't cognitively and socially predisposed to obey the authority of adult humans as human children are. If that's true, then wouldn't the same apply to animal babies?
I'm not certain that every child who has sex is necessarily significantly harmed by it. I need to research the topic more myself in order to know this for sure.
There are certainly children who have been sexually abused by an adult who did not suffer trauma or harm as a direct result of that incident. I, myself, am one of them. In my case, it was because I had no idea what sex was and had not internalized any connotations about it. The harm came after I learned what sexual abuse was, that what had happened to me could be considered abuse, and internalized a lot of societal messages about sex. As of now, I've learned to undo the harm and societal messages about sex that came after.
Something you might want to look into if you haven't is the the Rind et. al controversy. More information on it here. There were two peer-reviewed meta-analyses, one done in 1997 and one done in 1998 and the authors of the analysis came to the conclusion that
harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive,[3] that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved.
which caused a moral uproar and the US Congress to officially condemn the study. However, the lead author, Bruce Rind, emphasized the idea that the wrongfulness and harmfulness of child sexual acts are not intrinsically linked:
the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered. The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm.
—Rind et al. (1998) p. 47
zoozooz 2 points on 2015-05-21 07:24:42
But the guy featured in the linked article took advantage of immature animals and noone bats an eye here?
I find it difficult to form a final opinion. I am somewhat disgusted that he exploited the sucking reflex of calves for sexual gratification, but the question is whether he did physical or mental harm to them. And there I'm not so sure.
The purpose of the laws should be to protect animals from harm. I'm struggling a bit with the thought whether I actually want such things to be illegal and with what reasoning... As the judge said: There's no real basis to convict him of animal cruelty here...
Yearningmice 1 point on 2015-05-21 13:11:38
I'd like to address your point regarding the "abuse" of the calves. I feel like my position has always been clear on this and that I shouldn't have to explain it repeatedly but I guess my comment on this article can be seen as support of the gentleman in question.
So abuse of underaged animals is pretty obviously not a good thing. But they didn't pass a law that prevented that. It's like a man diddling a little boy and then passing a law on any gay sex. That was my point, yeah, what the guy did was stupid and most likely immoral. We will always have heterosexual or deviant non-zoos looking for their next high, be it animal sex, prostitution, rape, or running through peoples backyards to look in windows. If we should give up because of that they you are right, we are truly lost.
In the end, it is because we do not as a society give autonomy to animals that we end up in these confused situations where if an animal remains unharmed then what is really the problem?
The argument is much more broad than your narrow focus, did you stop to ask yourself why a calf was so hungry it'd suckle anything? I'd argue the harm to the calves was already happening if they were hungry enough. That's part of the dairy industry where mother's milk is diluted and calves put on to solid food as quickly as possible, or shipped to meat. Why didn't we also stop those practices? Which use of that calf was worse?
Edit to add: A note on the suckle reflex, yes, for the first few days after being born a calf does have and will suckle anything. It's partly survival to get em eating, but a well fed calf of a week or so won't. It is so common for calves to be hungry we don't even realize the difference anymore.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 4 points on 2015-05-20 14:01:12
"then at some point courts should permit intervention testimony offered by dog, horse, and cow whisperers." If the courts actually did this then they would find that the animal was not harmed.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 4 points on 2015-05-20 17:27:30
you're assuming these people are
a) truly able to do what they say
b) willing to tell the truth no matter what, even if they believe bestiality/zoophilia is wrong.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 2 points on 2015-05-20 18:38:53
Yeah I guess the anti's might lie if they think all bestiality is wrong even with contrary evidence.
zoozooz 3 points on 2015-05-20 22:16:10
In germany we have "Tierärzte gegen Zoophilie", basically "Veterinarians against zoophilia": google translation
There's also http://chandleredwards.org/. It's difficult to find out what exactly they "teach" in their "training", but looking around the website gives you an idea.
I don't know who really gets cited as experts in courts, but at least the groups that publicly claim to be experts like this look pretty much all biased from the beginning and even openly bigoted.
That must be the first thing to do: Get courts to prevent these people from impersonating neutral experts.
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-05-21 03:58:49
Wouldn't a typical animal expert assume sexual contact is inherently abusive, and not investigate further?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2015-05-21 05:44:39
Presumably if they have a college education, they should've been taught to assume NOTHING.
That doesn't seem to happen of course. But it's the first thing college is supposed to teach you, from what little I got from it...
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-05-21 05:59:55
Saying that implies that philosophy is taught at universities these days, as opposed to career training. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2015-05-21 07:25:14
Eh, you are probably right. My college was at least decent in this regard.
zoozooz 10 points on 2015-05-20 16:23:23
So, all you animal sex freaks, it’s time to say Goodbye Kitty.
Way to mock a minority that has just been criminalized. Fuck yea, America, land of the free.
One can imagine the potential suspicions if one Senate member voted against the bestiality law.
Media members would make a mad cow dash to that Senator’s backyard to interview a list of barnyard animals.
Fuck yeah, what a toxic climate! Exactly as it should be!
The bill identifies bestiality as a fourth-degree criminal offense, punishable by 18 months in prison and a fine of $10,000 or both. An obvious question is what took New Jersey lawmakers hundreds of years to get this bill onto a governor’s deskwhy does nobody explain why exactly this law is needed??
...
What’s amazing is that for the longest time, bestiality remained legal in states that banned same-sex marriage. You could get caught inside a local hotel with a German Shepherd or chihuahua and walk but homosexual and lesbian trysts were prosecuted.
As a non native speaker: What the fuck is a "tryst"?
A prearranged meeting or assignation, now especially between lovers to meet at a specific place and time.
(obsolete) A mutual agreement, a covenant.
Is he trying to say gay sex? Because that's not illegal. Why is it so fucking hard to get this right? There are many people who follow the (pseudo-?) christian idea that "marriage is a holy contract between a man and a woman" and that's why they legally prevent gay people from marrying. Not from sex. They're opposed to that of course too, but they have wised up and don't criminalize sex anymore. Prosecuted? Gay people were prosecuted for marrying? Or for sex? What?
A former legislative intern who died in February could soon have a legacy in New Jersey's law books.
Katie Schwartzer, a recent Rutgers grad who interned for Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, had suggested the state fix a legal loophole that left bestiality not explicitly outlawed.
Schwartzer, 23, also interned for the Humane Society.
"It was heartbreaking for all of us when we heard of Katie's passing this past February, but were determined to continue her advocacy...specifically for the bill she initiated," Kathleen Schatzmann, New Jersey state director for the Humane Society, wrote on Facebook. "This is the truest legacy that we can think of to honor Katie's work."
I think following that stuff is not good for my mental health. I keep fantasizing that a judge will explain to these people how wrong they are, send them to prison for their actions and ban their whole organization because of its anticonstitutional activities.
Zoodonym 1 point on 2015-05-20 20:01:44
Actually there are Sodomy laws in several states that criminalize gay sex, and some places are trying to get more in place, like Texas.
zoozooz 2 points on 2015-05-20 21:51:43
I thought in the US gay sex is legal everywhere? Or am I wrong?
But wow are there fucked up countries:
Jameica: Male illegal Penalty: 10 years hard labor (not enforced); Female always legal.
"Hard labor"? Seriously?
ursusem 1 point on 2015-05-20 22:59:49
Texas is trying to make more anti-gay laws? I thought Texas was one of the states where zoophilia is legal. Do you think this is because they are accepting of zoophilia in Texas (and hence they just really have a prejudice against gay sex?) or is this more because they don't hear of zoophilia?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2015-05-21 00:00:19
Gay sex is legal everywhere in USA now.
The same ruling in the 90s that federally overturned said Sodomy laws is the only reason bestiality is legal at all: they were often both in the same bill.
That being said, if we ever got the supreme court to actaully make a fair ruling, it could be argued that restoring parts of previously overturned bills is unconstitional... Issue being, no one gets an audience with the supreme court without much more support from the general populace than we possess, or a fuckton of money, neither of which we have... So these laws stick.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-06-01 12:42:06
A tryst is a secretive, romantic, agreement between lovers to meet at a certain time and place. Like a date, but more private.
/r/zoophilia archive
So, we knew this was coming and I cannot imagine any governor not signing this into law, except possibly to prove a point that "the gay" is going to let us boink animals.... anyhow....
I thought the interesting part of the story was the reason all this came to a head... so to speak...
I've been told so often that keeping quiet will protect us zoos better than anything else. But here is what I see, this guy who was caught had got off with "minimal" punishment. There was not a signal bit of support, evidence, or anything that could be brought to bear to say he hurt anyone. So why not enact a new law that only perverts would be affected by? To me, it seems our silence here has spoken plainly about how we feel about ourselves and has led us to NJ becoming illegal. It's not going to change much except I hope as a wake up call to those who thought they'd get in under the radar.
Stay safe NJ, and don't get caught.
You´re not satisfied with the strategy of keeping a very low profile, so what else do you propose? I´m from Germany, we have an organisation openly advocating zoophilia...and yet, no real differences in the public opinion towards animal-human relationships are noticable. Personally, I don´t think it is dependent on being silent about it or vocalising our demands as loud as we can, we still will be seen as sex freaks by Joe Average; maybe even more if we are loud as f**ing hell. Another thing that got my attention here: We as zoophiles insist on the fact that mature animals are not comparable to kids as they have a developed sexuality. But the guy featured in the linked article took advantage of immature animals and noone bats an eye here? Even if no harm was done, as a zoo you simply DON´T have sex with animal kids. Actions like these always make me wonder if our highly elaborate defense arguments only serve as decoys when in a discussion, but all our rules, codes of conduct and other stuff adressing the morality of zoophilia aren´t worth the paper they´re written on when pants are unzipped. "Penis erectus non compos mentis", a erect penis isn´t made of thoughts, as the Romans said...and that´s what the public gets to swallow: Zeta rules everyone cites when it comes in handy, but no one obeys to when opportunities arise. In the end, it´s all about the image the zoos have in public; no one will ever aid us in our struggle if we insist on pointing out Joe Average´s mistakes, but turn blind when it comes to our own.
Yes, I´m a zoo. An exclusive hetero horse zoo, to be precise. But I have no sympathy for someone abusing animal infants for his own pleasure,regardless of harm involved or not. And it´s always those people like the one mentioned in the article, acting not according to any zoo codex that make it to the media and forcing the state to act and issue new laws. Always remember: online animal porn, fencehoppers and other people acting irresponsibly brought us here...do the math. We can do pro zoo propaganda as long as we want, it still will be useless when the antithesis of our propaganda is only two clicks away for everyone to see.
Zeta-Verein could do a lot more if people donated something to them... They even got someone in the government to admit they could probably overturn the law if it got to germany's high court: but that is not cheap, and zoos are notoriously paranoid about donating to causes with a tracable cashstream.
Bitcoin could solve that issue, but few want to jump through that hoop.
...and so you get zeta-verein, a great but largely powerless attempt to fight a foe nearly 10 times their size.
Also. the opposition may only be two clicks away, but so are we. If we pretend not to exist, don't fool yourself: we have already lost, the hole IS getting deeper, and our age will come to an end. We are living on borrowed time
Either it is morally acceptable to have sex with animals or it isn't. Truth is truth. Regardless of how much public resistance there is- truth is still truth. It is my belief that truth always wins. Especially if the battle is fought courageously. But we definitely need to get our act together and make this our mission if we want to not be classified as criminals. I am not a criminal. I also have zoophilic feelings about animals. It is the truth that having sex outside one's species causes harm to no one. We shouldn't allow them to bully us into a position in society where we don't deserve to be!
Morality by nature is not truth. Truth is hard fact. Morality is not hard fact, and thus, morality is not truth. Morality is relative to the individual.
That said, in a country like germany where they claim morality has no place in the legal structure, you'd think they would've thought this over a bit better.
The US also has a constitution and several court precedents that could be used to prevent passage of anti-zoo bills, but no one is both brave enough AND wealthy enough to stand up. Sad state of affairs. The supreme court is booked to eternity with other "more important" matters and only they have the power to make this right. You think they'll see our case? Not likely.
I'm working on setting up a zoo charity to alleviate some of this, as I mentioned in some earlier posts. But it's a ways from being ready as it must be truly anonymous for both donors and administrators.
We must have a different idea about what morality means. Moral just means "not causing harm." It is possible for morality to be fact. Because if an action tangibly harms a sentient being, then this harm is a fact and it is a fact that that action is therefore immoral.
We should only create restrictive laws if there is good reason to do so.
I think people need to start getting more brave about this issue. I know we have a lot stacked against us, sadly. I think the best thing we can do is just fight their arguments. Write books. Conduct scientific experiments and on and on. Having money, I think could help us too. I would be willing to help us financially.
I mean no offense, but are you a native english speaker? Because yeah I agree with that being a factaul thing but I've never seen that definition of morality... Usually morality in english is a personal thing that may/may not intertwine with religious values...
I agree on all the other points though. Particularly the money one. Having facts is all well and good but it takes money to get them "peer reviewed" ... I am working on this but it's an uphill battle... Not that I expected anything less. ;)
I'm speaking more on what I believe that morality should mean. That seems to me to be all that really should matter in the creation of laws. I could also be a little naive about the subject in general. But this is the gist of what I'm currently understanding about it :/ Sorry if it isn't completely versed in whatever history. Of course morality is not something which exists in the physical world- it is a human concept.
I support you in your efforts to get us peer reviewed... I would be willing to help in any way... I will also try my very best to be a part of the solution as well as much as I possibly can be! Just saying!
I agree with your definition of morality. In my formative years, the pagan code of "If it causes no harm, you're free to do as you like" was the one that made most sense to me, much more so than the 10 commandments or the legal system.
But morality is relative, and the biggest evidence I have for that are all of the things that people cite for why they don't want to believe in moral relativity, all the evils done by people who refuse to call themselves evil.
For some people, disobedience to power and anything they find disgusting are also inherently immoral.
But how can something be evil if it doesn't tangibly harm anyone or anything? I think morality really isn't relative. The thing is that people like to think that their bigotry is the "moral right way." Why attempt to control that which harms none? You are automatically a freedom hater if you have that view and I believe that to be anti-freedom is an evil. And you say there are "evils done by people who refuse to call themselves evil." Like what? Can you give some examples on this?
I do not call such things evil, but many such things are called evil by, for example, the Bible. Mixed fibre fabrics being one of the classic examples of oddity.
My ideal society would be something like Ian Bank's "Culture", where the only rules are "No permanent killing, no reading people's minds, no interfering with the development of children".
Every act of war, especially when it leads to acts of terror ("Shock and awe") and torture ("Enhanced interrogation") for the sake of national security. Remember, the soldiers (even those that do these things, which I'd expect to be a minority) are put on a pedestal as heroes.
Every time that someone ignores the sentience and free will of others with the phrase "They don't count — they're not human!", both when they are human and it's racism, and (I believe) when they're not human and they're seen as just meat or leather.
Then there is taxes. There are both those who regard taxes as theft while at the same time others regard it's avoidance as theft. They can't both be right.
I see all of the points that you make here and I'm glad that there are zoophiles strong and brave enough to be able to question their sexuality. I think it demonstrates good character.
That being said, I don't believe that we zoophiles are in favor of the person's actions if the person had sex with baby animals. I think at the time being, zoophiles are concerned mainly with the fact that the publicity has the focus of showing people that in general it is wrong to have sex with animals. The problem is that these stories help non-zoos to believe that zoophilia in general is inherently wrong/immoral. That is the big problem. Yes, it is wrong for that person to have sex with baby animals. Although, I would say, that pedophilia is understudied in ways. I'm not certain that every child who has sex is necessarily significantly harmed by it. I need to research the topic more myself in order to know this for sure. No position can be adequately argued for or against until we have taken an honest and thorough look at the topics at hand. There is a lot of hysteria in our world culture these days. Not a lot of people have an ability to analyze issues of morality using a rational and sober mind.
Regardless of animal porn, fencehoppers etc moral philosophers still need to makes decisions based on rational argument. In other words, it makes no sense to say, "Look over here- I found someone doing this really sadistic sexual thing to this animal. And look at how much the animal is suffering." Okay, that is a situation where one person did an immoral thing. The thing involved sex. Now let's be rational. If we were to put a ban on all and any sex occurring between a human and a non-human animal we would be discriminating against a minority sexuality. We would be removing some people's freedoms. We may even be removing some freedoms of the non-human animals (namely the freedom to have sex with humans). And then what happens if let's say, a for instance male animal jumps onto a human who was bent over. Maybe this human is "raped" by the animal. Maybe this human had no clothes on because she/he was preparing to take a bath or was going to be skinny dipping in a pool or lake. Now that person is to go to jail for 10 years or be fined thousands of dollars? Think, people. Think. So if a human willfully, intentionally got naked in front of an animal and the animal then jumped on their back and the human felt gladly about that what is the problem with that? Why must that be punished especially in such a severe way? Please provide a rational argument why it would be appropriate to punish this! That is where the problem ultimately leads us and modern legislators are not doing the hard work necessary to satisfy these questions. Everyone is just going on moral repugnance and mob rule. The truth cannot be unseen for too long, is my theory. Probably zoophiles will need to help people see what they are averse to seeing.
I think the reasons why people feel so opposed to zoophilia is due to several different factors that are hot button issues today currently. I could begin to go into those factors but they are numerous! And that is a lot of what actually stands against the acceptance of zoophilia. If we can tackle the roots of the opposition- those factors- then we stand a chance.
I was under the impression that one of the reasons people argued in favor of animal-human sex is because animals aren't cognitively and socially predisposed to obey the authority of adult humans as human children are. If that's true, then wouldn't the same apply to animal babies?
There are certainly children who have been sexually abused by an adult who did not suffer trauma or harm as a direct result of that incident. I, myself, am one of them. In my case, it was because I had no idea what sex was and had not internalized any connotations about it. The harm came after I learned what sexual abuse was, that what had happened to me could be considered abuse, and internalized a lot of societal messages about sex. As of now, I've learned to undo the harm and societal messages about sex that came after.
Something you might want to look into if you haven't is the the Rind et. al controversy. More information on it here. There were two peer-reviewed meta-analyses, one done in 1997 and one done in 1998 and the authors of the analysis came to the conclusion that
which caused a moral uproar and the US Congress to officially condemn the study. However, the lead author, Bruce Rind, emphasized the idea that the wrongfulness and harmfulness of child sexual acts are not intrinsically linked:
—Rind et al. (1998) p. 47
I find it difficult to form a final opinion. I am somewhat disgusted that he exploited the sucking reflex of calves for sexual gratification, but the question is whether he did physical or mental harm to them. And there I'm not so sure.
The purpose of the laws should be to protect animals from harm. I'm struggling a bit with the thought whether I actually want such things to be illegal and with what reasoning... As the judge said: There's no real basis to convict him of animal cruelty here...
I'd like to address your point regarding the "abuse" of the calves. I feel like my position has always been clear on this and that I shouldn't have to explain it repeatedly but I guess my comment on this article can be seen as support of the gentleman in question.
So abuse of underaged animals is pretty obviously not a good thing. But they didn't pass a law that prevented that. It's like a man diddling a little boy and then passing a law on any gay sex. That was my point, yeah, what the guy did was stupid and most likely immoral. We will always have heterosexual or deviant non-zoos looking for their next high, be it animal sex, prostitution, rape, or running through peoples backyards to look in windows. If we should give up because of that they you are right, we are truly lost.
In the end, it is because we do not as a society give autonomy to animals that we end up in these confused situations where if an animal remains unharmed then what is really the problem?
The argument is much more broad than your narrow focus, did you stop to ask yourself why a calf was so hungry it'd suckle anything? I'd argue the harm to the calves was already happening if they were hungry enough. That's part of the dairy industry where mother's milk is diluted and calves put on to solid food as quickly as possible, or shipped to meat. Why didn't we also stop those practices? Which use of that calf was worse?
Edit to add: A note on the suckle reflex, yes, for the first few days after being born a calf does have and will suckle anything. It's partly survival to get em eating, but a well fed calf of a week or so won't. It is so common for calves to be hungry we don't even realize the difference anymore.
"then at some point courts should permit intervention testimony offered by dog, horse, and cow whisperers." If the courts actually did this then they would find that the animal was not harmed.
you're assuming these people are a) truly able to do what they say b) willing to tell the truth no matter what, even if they believe bestiality/zoophilia is wrong.
Yeah I guess the anti's might lie if they think all bestiality is wrong even with contrary evidence.
In germany we have "Tierärzte gegen Zoophilie", basically "Veterinarians against zoophilia": google translation
I've heard about the "animal legal defense fund". They publish really bogus articles: http://aldf.org/resources/laws-cases/the-crime-of-bestialityzoophilia-sexual-assault-of-an-animal/, http://aldf.org/blog/crimes-against-nature/. I don't understand why people don't see what's wrong with this. Is it really so hard?
There's also http://chandleredwards.org/. It's difficult to find out what exactly they "teach" in their "training", but looking around the website gives you an idea.
I don't know who really gets cited as experts in courts, but at least the groups that publicly claim to be experts like this look pretty much all biased from the beginning and even openly bigoted.
That must be the first thing to do: Get courts to prevent these people from impersonating neutral experts.
Wouldn't a typical animal expert assume sexual contact is inherently abusive, and not investigate further?
Presumably if they have a college education, they should've been taught to assume NOTHING.
That doesn't seem to happen of course. But it's the first thing college is supposed to teach you, from what little I got from it...
Saying that implies that philosophy is taught at universities these days, as opposed to career training. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Eh, you are probably right. My college was at least decent in this regard.
Way to mock a minority that has just been criminalized. Fuck yea, America, land of the free.
Fuck yeah, what a toxic climate! Exactly as it should be!
...
As a non native speaker: What the fuck is a "tryst"?
Is he trying to say gay sex? Because that's not illegal. Why is it so fucking hard to get this right? There are many people who follow the (pseudo-?) christian idea that "marriage is a holy contract between a man and a woman" and that's why they legally prevent gay people from marrying. Not from sex. They're opposed to that of course too, but they have wised up and don't criminalize sex anymore. Prosecuted? Gay people were prosecuted for marrying? Or for sex? What?
Here is another article with an "interesting" detail: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/nj_bestiality_ban_heads_to_christies_desk.html
https://www.facebook.com/HSUSNewJersey/photos/a.277792358914160.90759.222684961091567/1126832980676756/?type=1
I think following that stuff is not good for my mental health. I keep fantasizing that a judge will explain to these people how wrong they are, send them to prison for their actions and ban their whole organization because of its anticonstitutional activities.
Actually there are Sodomy laws in several states that criminalize gay sex, and some places are trying to get more in place, like Texas.
I thought in the US gay sex is legal everywhere? Or am I wrong?
But wow are there fucked up countries:
Jameica: Male illegal Penalty: 10 years hard labor (not enforced); Female always legal.
"Hard labor"? Seriously?
Texas is trying to make more anti-gay laws? I thought Texas was one of the states where zoophilia is legal. Do you think this is because they are accepting of zoophilia in Texas (and hence they just really have a prejudice against gay sex?) or is this more because they don't hear of zoophilia?
Gay sex is legal everywhere in USA now.
The same ruling in the 90s that federally overturned said Sodomy laws is the only reason bestiality is legal at all: they were often both in the same bill.
That being said, if we ever got the supreme court to actaully make a fair ruling, it could be argued that restoring parts of previously overturned bills is unconstitional... Issue being, no one gets an audience with the supreme court without much more support from the general populace than we possess, or a fuckton of money, neither of which we have... So these laws stick.
A tryst is a secretive, romantic, agreement between lovers to meet at a certain time and place. Like a date, but more private.