Fence-hopping: Acceptable or Not? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-07-13 03:53:59 by jackdempsey8083
Goooood morning everyone. Having one of those late night sessions on Reddit, and I finally have to decided to ask the above said question: is fence-hopping acceptable or not?
Now, I'm not asking for MY own benefit, ie "I'm wondering if it's ok". I'm asking this for the sole reason of a discussion; I've seen many examples on this sub where fence-hopping was not necessarily condoned, but also not argued against, as if it was just a "whatever" to most people. I doubt I'm alone in this thinking, but to me personally fence-hopping is equivalent to trespassing- bring in what you're trespassing to DO, and it overall hits me as wrong. IE, something to be against. Is this a general feeling others have, or are there grey areas I'm missing?
I'm of two perspectives on this, a legal one and a moral one. Legally, I'd say absolutely not (in the U.S. anyway), because even if we're in the best case scenario where one knows the animal well and does no harm to them, they are still using someone else's property without permission, and also perhaps breaking and entering. A night's fun isn't worth the risk of jail time, being sued, and generally being seen as a pervert and/or giant tool.
Morally, it's a bit grayer for me, but generally I'd say it should be discouraged if not outright banned. Granting the animal autonomy over their own bodies and choice about who to sleep with (which to the vast majority is a stretch at best), it still seems rude, if not disgusting, to disregard other people in an animal's life and sneak behind their backs to begin a clandestine affair. There could be situations where it's the best option for everyone involved, but for the most part it's a shitty thing to do all around, tempting though it sometimes can be in the face of an intolerant and unjust world regarding this subject.
If animals have the ability to consent to sex and choose with whom they want to do that with then it should be allowed?
The animal's owners might still be against it.
Of course they'd be against it. After all, a lot of people don't believe that animals can consent to sex. For some reason mostly unbeknownst to me.
I'm pro-zoophilia, but I will draw a weapon on anyone who I find trespassing on my property and especially if they're messing with my animals.
I have no idea what your intentions are, what kind of person you are or what you're going to do with my livestock, my loved pets or my property, and I will not hesitate to defend all of the above.
And I think this is a pretty common opinion in the US, zoophilia or not. So if you don't want to get arrested at best, shot full of large holes at worst, you should stay off other people's property. There's no reason in the world why you can't keep it in your pants. Oh boohoo, the wife won't let us buy a horse or an dog, how will I satisfy my raging curiosity boner... oh, I know, let me break into the neighbor's yard and touch their animals, that'll be great fun. Sorry, I don't care. If it means so much to you that you're willing to risk your goddamn life, fix your lifestyle to accommodate having your own animals, it will be a more rewarding experience for you anyway.
There billions of people who don't break into other people's property just because they're horny, and I don't see being infatuated with your neighbor's pet as a valid excuse to do actions with will give all zoophiles the brand of "dangerous deviants."
On an ethical level, I appreciate zoophilia and understand it and can certainly relate to the feelings. But you're not going to molest my animals. I've spent my life with them, I know their wants and needs and know how they communicate. You do not. You are trespassing to potentially sexually assault living beings with complicated feelings who are precious to me. I relate it to to sexual predation.
"Amen", said Jesus
I disagree. Horses are expensive and can't be kept everywhere because of zoning laws. The properties where you can horses might be too expensive because of land requirements. One can't just date a horse. While fence hopping is morally bad, it might be the only way one can have intercourse with a horse, especially if one does not have a lot of money. I do think that fence hopping for dogs is wrong, but not for horses or livestock.
While stealing a Lamborghini is morally bad, it might be the only way one can drive around with it, especially if one does not have a lot of money. Uh-huh.... I do think that stealing an Opel is wrong, but not stealing expensive cars. Uh-huh... Wow. Such bigotry. Much egoism. Because I can´t afford it, I have the right to steal it...well, I´ll try your morals the next time I´m in town...here I come, Ferrari and 150 inch flatscreen TV...;)
You make good points. I guess I need to save up money and buy a farm and my own horses. It will take longer then fencehopping but its the only right way to have a sexual relationship with a horse.
You say it like you HAVE to have intercourse with a horse, whether it belongs to you or not. Seriously, i don't care that it's the only way you can experience "hot horse pussy." It's not your sex toy, it's an animal I love and raised from birth and I have no idea who you are or what your intentions really are (apparently it's having sex with any horse that will allow you near it.) Nor do I care that you don't have other "options" or you can't afford a lifestyle that affords a horse. That's your problem, not the people who work their asses off for that lifestyle you lack. You will still face my 12 gauge if I catch you on my property, and I'll make sure your mug is all over the local paper.
It's trespassing for your own sexual pleasure. Do you think it makes you better than someone who breaks into people's homes and sniffs panties or installs cameras in women's bathrooms? It doesn't. It's the same level of disrespect and violation.
What's funny is if you were my hired hand that I trusted, and I saw you really, really loved a mare you were working with, and you came right out and asked me if you could have intimate time alone with her, I would probably say yes. I have nothing against zoophilia. I have everything against people who try to rationalize bad behavior.
Sorry I offended you with my comments. I was just blowing off some steam. I was upset I could not do anything sexual with my horse that I owned for 7 months (I wish you were the stable manager instead of the bitch that was in charge). I don't have bad intentions and I never fencehopped, just making a comment that fence hopping is one of the few ways that one could theoretically have sex with a horse without owning one, not that its the correct way to have sex. I did not mean to offend anyone. Sorry.
I'm probably more lenient than others in that I don't think it's that bad, if done on the basis that it's always the animal's decision what is being done.
But it still is bad. Trespassing is wrong and so is going behind someone's back. So all in all: Nope, not acceptable.
And as others have mentioned, it's dangerous because the owner doesn't know your intentions and should and does have the right to defend himself and the animals.
Fencehopping is dangerous to the animal: Usually, horses and cattle are victims of fencehoppers. Both tend to panic easily when confronted with an intruder, especially when the intruder knows nothing about the species except where the private parts are located. Horses have better night vision than humans, but this won´t help them in pitch dark nights. A small hole in the ground can break a running horse´s leg, ending his life. Invading herds of animals at night causes stress; stress can lead to a colic, also ending the horse´s life if not treated AFAP.
Fencehopping is violating laws and dangerous for yourself: Trespassing, breaking into property etc... if you do this, you basically beg for being criminalized. Not only in the US, people with lifestock possess weapons to defend their animals from predators, often quadruped ones, sometimes biped ones..expect one or two in the kisser and be thankful if it´s only fists,not bullets.
Fencehopping is egoistic: Zoophilia is MUTUAL love of an animal and a human. How much love can it be if you as a fencer only see your "beloved" animal at night and from behind? Do you really think that´s love? How much do you really know about this animal´s personality? How much do you know anyways about the animal? Right, nothing. You´re not searching for love, you´re searching for an easy and inexpensive way to get off.
Fencehopping damages the zoophile idea: When you get caught, the public´s negative stance towards zoophilia will be further reassured. They already think we´re all sex maniacs without the ability to keep our junk in our pants when we see some random animal. Acting like a fencer only proves them right. They say, we zoos are irresponsible, egoistic, don´t care for the animal (in another case, a "zoophile" inserted fingers and arm into a pregnant mare´s vagina, injuring the mare and giving her an infection killing the unborn foal) and basically are unable to cotrol our carnal urges. Fencehoppers prove any point of that list. Nobody will trust us zoos anymore, all our elaborated defense arguments destroyed and considered blatant lies by the actions of fencers.
Fencehopping is "picking out the raisins": As a fencehopper, you take the easy way. You just go out and fuck. You don´t have to provide for the animal, you don´t buy food, clean up the stables, pay the vet (sometimes needed because of a fencehopper)...why don´t you buy your own animal instead? I know, because taking care of this "uncomfy beast" will interfere with your life. It takes dedication and lots of money to own an animal such a horse or a cow. You want the best without having to deal with the uncomfortable things. You don´t want a relationship beyond the fucking, right?
Fencehopping is inflicting fear and anger: Imagine some horseowner. He walks on his pasture and incidentally finds an unexplainable footprint. Guess what kind of sleep this guy will have? Right, none. He´ll live in constant fear from now on. He´ll buy cameras, visit his animals often, maybe even patrol around his pasture at night. It only takes some weeks living in constant fear and fear turns to anger. Anger for the person stealing his sleep and inducing an atmosphere of fear. usuall, this guy will talk to other owners, spreading the fear. Very quickly, a whole region of animal owners will live in angst city. Guess how receptive those people will be for the idea of tolerated zoophilia for the rest of their lives.
Any genuine zoophile should distance himself from fencehopping as much as possible. Fencehoppers don´t belong to us, never have, never will. It is a matter of respect to leave other people´s animals alone. No one cares what excuse you have for fucking other people´s animals with neither knowledge nor consent from the owner. The fencehopping issue is one of the key issues we have to come up with a solution suitable for the normal, non-zoo owners out there. We zoos already have big problems convincing Joe Average to tolerate that we have sex with OUR animal; how successful can it be to demand it should be possible for anyone claiming to be "zoo" to literally fuck any animal he can get a hold of? Succeeding in the former task is highly unlikely, but succeeding in the latter is totally utopic. Fencehopping never will be accepted by the public. So we have to get rid of practices that prevent us from making progress, gaining tolerance...it´s only logic. Fencehopping isn´t tolerable. We must get rid of it, once and for all. Without clear statements against fencehopping and maybe forming some task force preventing self proclaimed "zoos" from doing this shit, we won´t get anywhere.
What do you think about fence hopping at night to see your favorite horse that you taken many riding lessons on. The horse would be used to you so your first and third paragraph would be null, the fifth paragraph does not apply since you are paying for riding lessons.
Dude, you´re paying for riding lessons..this does NOT include the right to invade foreign territory and fuck the horse. Guess what, sometimes I pay for a taxi; still I don´t buy the right to fuck the driver or car, you know? ;) Regardless of you being familiar with one horse, you´re still interrupting the resting phase of ALL horses. Have you seen a narcoleptic horse yet? I had the "pleasure"...when I had to enter the stables because I had to take care of a mare giving birth to a foal at around 3 AM on 4 consecutive days, interrupting the narcoleptic horse´s resting phase, the next day this horse slipped into a sleeping phase WHILE WALKING. The girl leading it around barely made it out of the danger zone, the horse suddenly fell asleep and onto the ground. Narcolepsy isn´t rare among horses, an estimated 1 out of 20 horses has it. Even if the horse visited knows you it still is stress for the horse as you interrupt the natural biorhythm.So, paragraph one still in effect. Paragraph three also, as you deny the horse´s right to sleep only because you´re horny. You even put the horse in danger of colic. Paragraph five: Hell, dude, you obviously never have owned a horse yourself. Do you really think that paying 10 to 30 bucks for a riding lesson can be compared to all the money and work included in horse ownership? Farrier, vet, hay, straw, pellets and muesli, the rent for the box...this easily can add up to 500 to 1000 Euros per month, depending on the stable´s quality and frequency of visits from the vet. Additionally, horses are no prostitutes and I really begin to doubt your intentions when reading such a weak apology for fencehopping. "Hell, Offsa, you can´t arrest me ´cause I paid for riding lessons"..Whoa...^^
I actually owned a horse for 7 months, and had vet bills totaling around 2000 dollars (caveat my mom gave me 500 and the horse healed and is currently at a good home). I guess I'm sexually frustrated because when I owned him, I had him boarded at a public stable so I couldn't do much sexually. I just wish horse ownership was more accessible in the sense that one could be allowed to own one on smaller acreage. I wish I could turn my garage into a stall for a mini horse, and my courtyard into a paddock but I can't because of zoning laws.
Okay, to get any useful answer to your question you are going to have to define the term "fence hop" is it broad, any animal you don't own. Do we define it narrowly, "any animal who you'd be committing trespassing to see"? What about an animal you've developed a relationship with? Whose owner know you see the animal, but not the affectionate part? What if the owner is aware?
When are we going to acknowledge that poor people might be zoos too? I didn't own my first horse until I was 35 and I had tonnes of advantages. I still don't own the property I should.
What exactly does plopping down a purchase price of $100 change for the horse in the relationship? Does it really change anything for the anti-zoo? /u/30-30 gives a list of fence hopping issues and if you replace fence hopping with "sex with animals" you could write almost the same list and a "normal" would be all over it.
I always called this fence hopping but I read a thread on ZF that gave me a nice definition. It grouped stuff like this under the category of 'going behind someones back'. Its not strictly fence hopping, as there is no fence, per se, but I think its still as much of a breach of trust between you and the animals official owner.
I cant speak what this means for horse zoos as I have no idea about the intricacies of such a relationship (who actually owns the horse and how much access to the horse do they get if you rent one etc.)
I am not a zoo but I am pro zoophilia and if I caught somebody fence hopping to have sex with my animals I would be pretty upset (though I probably would not judge them or call the cops or be violent or yelling at all, maybe just have a long talk about why I dislike what they are doing as that is how I am). It is a violation of my rights in my belief and I feel that it would not allow for a proper control of safe sex with the animals. Given if somebody walked up and asked to have sex with my animals I would still probably say no (although it would depend on some factors), but I feel it would be wrong to do so without asking even if I said it was okay.
It's difficult for me.
On the one side I am sure that the animals should be allowed to choose who their partner should be. Furthermore noone should own anything besides his own body as property is the cause of the struggle most of humanity has and of course the nature and all the animals that suffer from being oppressed and tortured. In this ideal case horses as an example could choose to live with us humans freely. The horse is its own owner. Noone should be judged when he wants contact with such a horse as long as the horse wants it to. Other people should just intervene if the horse is forced. Is the animal sick? Who can know? Maybe some human that cares. But in the wild noone knows really either. It is the horse or the human that could realize it. Maybe. But then again we live in a world where property is accepted. So is possessing horses. They are property that can be damaged. The people that actually care can be worried if someone could hurt the horse which I perfectly understand but I know lots of (former) FHs that never did anything to a horse it wouldn't want too. There might be FHs that hurt the animals but being a FH doesn't mean you are a zoosadist.
For me, fence-hopping is acceptable as long as the FH is respecting the boundaries the animals set. The others are not acceptable of course.
The egocentric believe that we are talking about property in form of space and sentient beings is one thing that keeps the animals under such bad conditions we actually should hate if we call ourselves zoophiles. You don't need to own someone in order to want protect them but think about if your animal would choose to live with you if it had a legit chance to go away.
"noone should own anything...(...)" sorry, but this is rubbish. Without private property, there´s no privacy. Without privacy, there´s no freedom. I´m sick and tired of this stupid hippiesque attitude, not even Karl Marx or anarchists like Kropotkin and Bakunin demanded anything like this. We already had this attitude tested in the 70s and it failed miserably.
How about allow fencehopping only with wild horses not used to human contact? Because there wouldn´t be much "successful" fencehopping without the oh so disgustable owner having positively imprinted the horse before? Any fencehopper is simply denying the fact that without the owner´s care and attention, he wouldn´t have much "fun". Demonizing ownership is ridiculous, especially when it only demonizes the ownership of animals you want to fuck. What about those animals who are killed, sliced and minced for you to shove down your throat? Would you go vegan, abandoning any meat and correlated products? Additionally, it is a very dumb idea to compare wild to domesticated horses. For example, when the financial crisis hit Europe, many horse owners in Ireland couldn´t afford horses anymore and just set them free. Many horses died because of the rapid change of diet, many got hit by cars, only a few survived...and today, Ireland faces severe problems with wild horses because those survivors bred like rabbits.So much for the "just set ´em free" idea...
"I perfectly understand but(...) you are a zoosadist." How do you know they haven´t done anything against the animal´s will? Especially when you consider how less the average fencehopper knows about the species he´s taking advantage of? And another question: Have you read my other replies? What about the risk of causing a panic? What if the horse you abuse is allergic against your bodyfluids? Are you still there to see the anaphylactic shock and call the vet to save the horse´s life at the cost of your exposure? What kind of "love" is fencehopping? In the end, it´s completely the decision of the fencehopper if sex will happen,isn´t it? Or have you been surprised by a horse entering your house and bedroom to have sex with you? And what about the argument of picking out the raisins? You "love" the horse when your dick is out of your pants, but when you´re finished you don´t give a flying fuck anymore ´cause you had what you were after...getting your rocks off. Relationships develop over time. If you actually want to give the animal the right to decide, then fencehopping is the exact opposite of that. Unless the animal has the chance to know you and identify you as a herd mate, the animal won´t "decide" to let you fuck it...mares are very picky. Another point: many fencers mistake apathy as approval and consent due to their lack of knowledge. Many fencers coerce the animal into sex with food and such...all of this you really should take into your considerations before defending fencehopping. The picture of "the harmless fencehopper" is biased; funny that only the non-owners tend to show understanding for this conduct, isn´t it? Reality proves this idealistic illusion of harmless fencehopping wrong. Animals are hurt ,either intentionally or unintentionally, coerced and/or forced into sex, tied up, pushed into the corner of the box so they don´t run off...I´m really sick of this legend told for so many years now, there´s no harmless fencehopping at all. Above I tried to show why FH is never harmless, neither for the animals nor for us zoos as a community or the owners. And, when you are honest for a second, fencehopping is basically about getting laid quick and cheap. For your last paragraph: I´ve already read something similar in one of ZETA´s publications. They tried to justify fencehopping with the same bogus argument. The owner neglects the horse and, as a "zoo", you should help the horse...but, tell me, do you really think that "visiting" this horse at night, fucking it will actually "help" the horse? Those "bad conditions" you´re talking about....what bad conditions are you referring to? Those you make up in your mind because you don´t have a clue about the needs of DOMESTICATED animals? Your idea of a world where animals are "free" (free to suffer, die from the slightest, easily treatable infection...we eevil humans, we...^^) is romantic...but nearly as stupid and a form of separatism/speciesism as what PETA is basing their arguments upon.
An extension of this argument is that one should be able to sneak into someone else's house and have sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend as long as they're willing. While such a scenario may be defensible on grounds of free agency, it seems to me it's pretty disrespectful to go behind someone's back and exploit an opportunity with a being that person loves and cares about (and, in the case of animals, typically also supports).
I'm pro-zoophilia. I think trespassing is wrong so trespassing for the sake of your own benefit is in my mind even worse. I've seen many videos where a person with a blurred face will be partaking in sexual intercourse with a horse for example on a night vision camera. I don't know about anyone else but that sends off a red flag in my mind. Why is he doing this at night? Why not during the day? You do things at night when you want to hide things. So I think it shows trespassing and most likely animal abuse. If you aren't able to do this activity with an animal during the day who's to say the animal even belongs to you. Furthermore how would you have a real, genuine relationship with that animal if you an only do so at night. All that stuff just sets that red flag high in the sky for me. Fence Hopping is bad in my mind. However I'm open to arguments against mine and I am willing to listen to what others have to say. I'm in no way a genius.