I had always been cautious about both prostitution and bestiality, especially when mixed, simply because "I care" does not translate into "risk-free" and the risk factors multiply together. But I recently visited Amsterdam with my (human) partner, and she showed me the red light district. I have to say it totally changed my views on prostitution.

While I had previously felt that prostitution had risks of coercion, seeing the miserable and angry expressions on their faces as they looked out of their windows... the Netherlands is socialist and cares about women's rights, and if prostitutes are visibly unhappy in their capital city, then I can't imagine it really working out for anyone.

We also looked around the sex shops, and I saw DVDs openly for sale with titles such as "the torture of rape". I find such things quite disturbing. I've heard arguments both ways on the topic of "should it be allowed?", one side claiming it's just acting and no more real (or more likely to encourage) than action films, the other side claiming the actors and actresses are coerced and that it promotes a culture of acceptability for such actions. I don't know either way, but as with prostitution, I can see the risks are multiplicative.

I would happily outlaw animal prostitution everywhere (unless you can prove that no harm has been done by the act, which might require it to be filmed); the only difference between me and the last decade of our losses in that regard is that I would describe artificial insemination, pure-breeds, factory farms, puppy mills, etc. as "prostitution" when done for money.

For porn, more complex. There are plenty of pictures which excite us which normal people don't even consider that we might like, yet for "real porn" the risk factors are multiplicative just as they are for prostitution. At first glance, requiring a "no animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture" certification would work, but that the internet makes a mockery of national borders, and a nation without such laws can produce it all much more cheaply (the same problem that human porn laws have), so the prohibition has to be on possession not on manufacture. Simulated porn (e.g. cartoons) seems fine, but it would have to be obviously simulated, so realistic dildos or humping while wearing nothing but flesh coloured underwear would not. The only no-bestiality animal porn I know of appears to be compatible with the welfare of those involved, so I'm OK with that unless anyone can show me a reason to change my mind.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but around here, physical media of porn can only be sold in licensed shops, and there is usually a great deal of complaint about them existing ("Think of the children!" typically). Anyone who expects that animal porn would be in a grocery store is out of their mind.

Likewise, quite a lot of businesses refuse to allow dogs (other than service dogs) inside, and with good reason. People can have strong allergies to dog hair, dog poop is known to be a strong risk factor for children, their dietary needs are unexpectedly different from humans.

Fence-hopping is just trespass, we definitely shouldn't change the laws to add an exception for "but the horse was just sooooo hot!". That's just asking for trouble, as I would expect people to use it as an excuse when caught mid-robbery.

Marriage. Well, that depends what you mean by it. "To love, honour and obey, until death us do part"? That sounds like what dogs are expected to do as pets. On the other hand, the idea that I could get a married couple's tax allowance for sharing my life with a horse? That's taking the piss. Likewise, unless they suddenly get the right to own property, the idea a wolf could collect a widow's/widower's pension, or have default inheritance rights, is absurd. Adoption rights would be hilarious - just imagine a dolphin giving their adopted kid a permission slip for a school trip. (Likewise, "My dad can beat up your dad" is an amusing thought when "my dad" is a gorilla). The only parts that I can think of that makes sense are hospital visitation rights, or that "divorce" would replace "giving up for adoption" which could greatly increase the animal's long term welfare.

Promiscuity, sharing, etc. My views are that it's down to the animal. What are they comfortable with? That's the gold standard for us when it comes to sex, why would the question of open/closed relationships alter this?

An animal is usually property. If you put your dick in my property, that's not allowed. I don't care what part of my property it was, don't put your dick in it lol.

Let me start by stating I'm speaking from the perspective of someone in the U.S., with the social norms more similar to there than, for example, Scandinavian countries.

First, I think that sexual activity with animals should be regulated pretty much identically with nonsexual activity, with a great deal of improvement in animal welfare laws on both fronts. Animal porn should be regulated with a blend of the laws in mainstream porn (check for age and health, proper compensation for all actors, etc.) and the sorts of checks the ASPCA puts on other movie producers (licensed trainers and caretakers, supervision of all activity involving the animal, etc.) It's availability should not necessarily be restricted, but it should remain hidden in specialty shops or behind a curtain in a video rental store. As for the internet... good luck regulating it there, but the production at least can be regulated.

Fencehopping should remain illegal so long as animals remain the property of human beings. Even if they were not, I might argue that secretly using someone else's home or barn for that is trespassing and/or burglary, while taking the animal away for that may be akin to kidnapping if done too forcibly. The animal's owner or caretaker would of course have every right to investigate for animal cruelty, and have veterinary help to do so.

Animal promiscuity, by which I'd mean allowing animals to have sex with anyone they like, seems unavoidable to me, since the sorts of animals we pursue are rarely monogamous. Swapping and sharing, since they are allowed for humans, should be allowed with animals too, although their reactions should determine whether the animals are fine with it. Basically, these things should be discouraged (due to disease risk and screwing up relationships between people and animals), but not forbidden.

The social norms of monogamy should be followed, in my opinion, even among zoos. This does not disallow individuals the right to make their own choices on it, but I think it usually leads to stronger relationships, in humans at least. We seem to be socially and/or psychologically conditioned to be happiest in that circumstance usually, and I don't think that changes just because our lovers have four legs instead of two.

I wouldn't think interspecies marriage with our chosen species could be meaningful, since it would require the animal to have contractual capacity, which requires enough familiarity with human language and societies, as well as reasoning power, to understand rights and responsibilities. This, I believe, is beyond the capacity of even the most intelligent nonhuman animals so far (dolphins, chimpanzees, etc.), so marriage in the modern sense is out of the question.

Ironically, this is so because Western society has largely redefined marriage from the joining of families through the binding of their children together into the same house (as well as the payment of dowry) to a choice of two individuals to share their social and financial lives, with all the benefits that society gives them to encourage that. Because the choice lies with the people getting married and not authorities over them, it depends on both parties being able to make it in an informed way. Sex doesn't require that much information (do we like each other? will it fit?) compared to marriage (what is your insurance premium? what do you want done if you go into a coma?).

Cheating, as far as I see, is more of a human thing than an animal one. It is cruel and unjust if it affects the animal (for example, their partner neglects them in favor of some bitch down the road), but otherwise I don't see why it should matter. Once again, it should be discouraged, but not forbidden.

Of course, all of this would require stronger animal welfare laws and better enforcement of them. Much though I disagree with many on the animal rights side, they do have a point when they show how woefully inadequate animal cruelty laws can be to address pressing issues. I'd favor the creation of new state agencies specifically for animal advocacy: similar to child protective services, but tailored more to animal needs.

I want the following in my "Zootopia": animal porn as long as it is not forced nor under aged should be allowed. Fencehopping should not be allowed because it is trespassing which is illegal. I think sharing animals should be allowed since not every zoo has access to animals or property to keep animals on. I don't think marriage should be allowed between a human and a non-human The reason being is that animal can't understand the concept. I also think no Zootopia would be complete without laws protecting zoophiles from hate crimes.

I don't demand rights; I demand freedom.

Marriage, yes or no? What about cheating on your animal spouse?

You ask questions that are loaded. Marriage is a culture phenomenon. Animals don't get married. This is equilivant of Homonormativity. It's the pressure to be normal. Gayness used to be do-what-you-want-where-you-want and have sex everywhere. Now, gayness is about marriage and adoption. They have assimilated the "white, heterosexual" culture to appear more normal, more non-weird.

Being weird doesn't feel good. You get made fun of. Fuck the mundane and mediocre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnM3E_sEHpE

1) The animal porn issue I see that there are quite a lot of defendants for the availability of animal porn, but I am not convinced that having these available for anyone does any good. The concept of animal marriage was declined because the animal isn´t capable of understanding it. So, why do you think this, from the animal´s viewoint equally incomprehensible, concept of filming sex acts to provide "inspirational wank support" flicks for the www (worldwide wankers), would be okay? The ones profiting from AP are always the humans, the animal will have no benefits from becoming a fourlegged pornstar. For me, recording AP and uploading it can be compared to secretly filming your sexual adventures with your human partner and publishing it without his/her consent. Animals can consent to sex, but they surely can´t consent to be featured in a porn movie. But apart from the ethical issues, there are more dangers involved. If you do some research, you´ll find lots of statements like " seen AP once, been hooked ever since"...in this context, there is some undeniable "advertising" effect to be witnessed. Maybe many of these folks, whose entire "experience" with zoophilia can be filed under "watching too much AP", would never be involved in having sex with animals if AP didn´t exist or wasn´t as easily accessible as it is today. IMHO,AP leads to watering down the original idea behind zoophilia, it lures people without any knowledge about animals or zoophilia in; usually it´s exactly this type of folks who cannot live out their "newly found/acquired" desires responsibly and with respect for the animal getting caught and/or exposed, with all the following negative press and further denigrading the true zoophiles. For me, AP is nothing worth to insist on; if the public would reach out for the zoos with a compromise that, while zoophilia is accepted, AP is treated like child pornography and completely removed from the net, well, show me where to sign and I´ll leave my autograph right now.Animal porn = financial interest...human greed brought our planet to the brink of extinction, would it be wise to open up yet another possibility to sell out nature for human greed?So, I say: Keep AP off the net. Delete it, shut down sites featuring videos of this kind. 2) Fencehopping I´m very glad we agree on this. Fencehopping isn´t harmless, many risks for the animals are involved. Invading a pasture at night could easily lead to a panic within the herd. Horses might have a distinctively better sight than humans, but this won´t prevent accidents like stepping into a hole while running and breaking a horse´s leg. Interrupting the resting phase of horses can lead to a stress colic. Imprinting an animal without the owner´s knowledge can lead to very uncomfortable and maybe dangerous situations for the owner, just imagine a stallion who suddenly decides to hop onto a person walking him around, only because some egoistic wannabe "zoo" could not contain himself. But, as I said, I´m glad of the broad rejection of fencehopping. I even think that fencehopping is one of the "best" negative examples to prohibit "zoophilia". 3) Promiscuity and sharing animals Well, some diverse points of view here. I personally would not allow it for humans, just because it has this severely damaging effect on the zoo´s general public image. We already are commonly seen as sexual predators with an unsatiable need for perverted sex, so allowing a human to be in a relationship with more than one animal would further deepen the public´s notion we turn towards animals because we want to avoid the unpleasant parts of sexuality, like not cheating or giving in to your urges whenever you like. It would enhance the already existing idea that we only objectify animals and our primary interest is egoistic.So I say that the same morals normal people have to accept in their relationships should be applied to interspecies relationships.The concept of monogamy isn´t there because the priests or authorities force mankind into it, it is inherent in humans. There are some undeniable benefits of monogamy, but I understand why it is seen as controversial by so many...I think, there are two unmatching definitions of "love"...there´s one definition where love is something that transcends the both individuals involved, merging them into a whole on a higher level; and there´s the other definition where love is ,from what I´ve witnessed, mistaken as love for sex. Additionally, we live in an era where all people born after 1990 came into puberty with all kinds of pornography easily accessible like never before in history of mankind. It never was easier as today to view any type of porn you can think of. What will it do to human concepts of partnership and sexuality? We already experience a phase with what I call a "supermarket mentality" regarding sexuality. Where will this hedonistic and egoistic trend lead us to?I don´t think insisting on ideas of free love, brought up by the hippie era and miserably failed in the 80s, will gain anything except further alienation from the vast majority of average people. 4) Animal marriage Of course the animal won´t understand the concept of marriage. But animals do build friendships , even outside of their species. Wouldn´t it be logical to assume this friendship, when nourished, can develop into genuine "love" for another single individual? Maybe they can understand the basic concept of marriage, too. But, it´s true that a marriage would have more effects on the human than the animal. I consider it as a step into a more normal kind of "perversion", the gays do not want their possibility to marry just because they want to be more "normal" like electricfoxx put it. This "homonormativity" isn´t inherently bad; quite the opposite may be true. Whereas promiscuity will be interesting for those only pursuing their ego, more and more gays seem to be fed up with all this darkroom, anonymous sex-only relationships. I do not see anything negative in that. As an early supporter of gay rights in the 80s, I felt disappointed by the way the gay scene developed in the nineties. I gave support for same sex relationships with a strong focus on love, not living out any sexual fancy you can come up with. In fact, this is what makes so many conservatives angry: the gay rights were about equal love, not permissiveness to explore the deepest, darkest parts of your sexuality. We should not reproduce the same mistake here, I only demand the right to love, not the egoistic sexual permissiveness of almost anything...btw: the public can accept that some individuals fall in love with an animal, but they will never accept total sexual freedom without any morals and ethics.I see marriage as a promise, a promise to be faithful even when the circumstances of a quick cheating are tempting. Animals can be envious and certainly can smell you cheated on them with another animal. My mare is extremely pissed off when I had to ride a horse from another owner and she can smell the other horse, especially mares. So I refuse to say that cheating won´t hurt the animal, at least my mare clearly shows her discontent when I "mess" around with other horses.As a summary, my "zootopia" would be like this: It would be perfectly okay to choose an animal as a partner for life, but I won´t expect any special treatment just because my love is "so special". You would be able to reduce taxes for goods necessary to maintain the health and happiness of your quadruped partner, but as a compensation for this, you have to accept the same norms and morals as the majority.What definitely would be a no-no in my "zootopia" would be any commercial exploitation of animals, be it the meat industry, the breeding industry or the porn industry. Animals are already the modern slaves capitalism needs to function...tolerated zoophilia should never be an excuse to exploit animals in yet another way. In my world, there would be no animal porn, no sharing of animals, no fencehopping, just healthy human-animal relationships under the supervision of the authorities, like monthly, unschedueled visits from a neutral vet to ensure the animal is not suffering physically or psychically from the relationship. Pimping out animals would be forbidden and could result in losing the benevolence of the authorities as it can be seen as luring in people to a sexuality that is deemed as problematic if the negative impulses of hedonism and the attitudes of the "FATW" (Fucks anything that walks) individuals take over. The human desires should never outrule the animal´s dignity and the respect you naturally owe to the animals. Love before sex. Zoophilia should not be just another topic of sex education, it should never be seen as just another segment of human sexuality, but as a very rare and special form of love that should remain in the background of society; nobody would gain anything from turning zoophilia into the "next big thing" in human sexuality. We need to keep our group as small as possible instead of counting even the most deranged animal porn fiend in; keeping our numbers small will take away the negative, angst ridden feeling of Joe Average he already has when it comes to same sex marriages (" If those fags can marry, marriage does not mean anything anymore.") We should focus on calming down society and ensuring them they won´t have to deal with a legion of willing animal fuckers with the said insaturable sex drive.

I just want to be able to tell people Im a zoo and people not care about it.

Society would have to change into something so radically different than what we have now that it would be a nearly unrecognizable world and almost impossible to speculate what repercussions of socially accepted zoophilia would be like.

Why do I say this? Because despite what we all want to believe, zoophilia is not natural. It's not something ingrained in all people and only kept in check by social/cultural taboos. There is no evolutionary advantage to wanting to mate outside our species, particularly with creatures that may be dangerous, and exceedingly difficult to actually produce offspring with. Because of this, there is only a small fraction of a fraction of the population who would be tolerant of it, much less accepting or have the desire to partake in it. True, if social and cultural taboos were removed, there would probably be a few more people who might enjoy the idea of inter-species intimacy, but I'm not convinced any more than I believe I would be attracted to other people of my gender if it was more culturally accepted in my region. People are just plain wired differently, and zoophilia is definitely a different kind of wiring.

I'm not saying it's wrong. However that's the other thing that will not be overcome anytime soon. Most people do believe it's wrong. We would need to completely overhaul not only our views of sexuality, but our views of animals and what it means to have free will, consent, intelligence, consciousness, etc. And this won't happen until we can somehow make a different kind of connection to our environment and other creatures, possibly if we become a life-form which can shift consciousness into other forms, so you could say, experience what it's like to actually think like an animal for a day. This will not happen unless we reach a complete level of interfacing with advanced computers or transfer over to synthetic minds entirely.

But by this time, we're going to have a totally different perspective of the whole universe. Sex and pleasure will be changed or forgotten, and if we did want to experience biological pleasure, it would probably be far easier and more enjoyable to experience it through perfect simulations, and at that point, why limit yourself to sex with animals? Our descendants will know what it's like to experience the universe through new eyes, so it's only likely that we will be trying unheard of things, like simulating what it's like to be a sexually reproducing star.

Alternatively, most animals may die off in the coming centuries anyway, so it may all be a moot point.

Fence hopers are responsible for not harming whatever non human animal they have sex with. It is not with man. It is with God who is not seen. That is what people need to think about to so whoever considers what they do and what they don't do. Non human animal's don't know what marriage is. It would be pointless for them. They would not know what to do with inheritance either. The Nude form is seen as porn. All that is except for what people make is one form of porn or another.