Well, filming and posting isn't exactly the best course one would take if one wanted the fact they were attracted to nonhuman animals to stay secret.

I'm sympathetic to this person, so long as the sexual acts were consensual.

May I ask how that was insensitive?

It was not my intention. I feel bad for this person and again, doubt they deserved this. I just don't know enough to make an acurate judgement, which I think would be a hallmark of sensitivity, not vice versa.

I wish him only the best, regardless of what I know. I'm just reminding people filming is bad practice.

Please don't take that the wrong way TV. I have way too much respect for you to get caught up in semantics like that.

[deleted]

I respect you and your opinions as one of the better, more intelligent and generally admirable people on these boards, but I have to disagree with you here and go "wha?"

/u/Rannoch2002's comment was not insensitive. It's sympathetic but accurate. If you were friends with "blackstrau5" on some level, then we're all sorry for your friend and how it may effect you. But on a legal level it absolutely is begging for trouble when you film and distribute. On a personal safety level it is also begging for trouble. There are people out there who would delight in finding and lynching a zoophile. It's just not safe and there's no reason in the world to do so unless you really want attention. Which you will get plenty of.

And on an ethical level I also don't agree with filming sex acts with animals. As it is we have an enormous human porn industry that exploits each other and makes women and people of all kinds into sex toys. And there are so many people out there who get off watching "sick and bizarre" acts that there is a very large market for bestiality porn, and even filming loving, consensual acts with a trusted partner contributes to this kind of exploitation.

We're all curious at times, we all are voyeuristic to some degree. We all like to look at intimacy in others and fantasize. But zoophilia is never going to become a mainstream, ethically regulated activity. Animal porn will always be lumped together with everything else gross and disgusting on the internet and as such I think we would all be better off if it was discouraged as much as possible. Of course this is my personal belief and I don't stand on a soapbox attacking anyone who wants to see it. That's actually why I took on /r/animalromance as an opportunity to provide an alternative to exploitative porn.

Ive been saying time and time again, the porn you people make will be your downfall, if you fail to see that, youre more ignorant than I thought.

Their Vet report was complete bullshit.

I don't think the public ever got to see any vet report here. This article here just said the dogs were examined and didn't even say what the supposed conclusion was.

Unfortunately just contradicting a vet is not something that is easily accepted without further proof, e.g. another contradicting report from a neutral vet. A vet is supposed to be an authority on animal health so there's a good reason to be skeptical of what you say. On the other hand it's no secret that vets sometimes are biased against zoophiles, so there's a good reason to be skeptical of any vet's report too (but the public might not see it that way).

Bottom line: Without knowing you, the vet or the dogs, there is no telling who's in the right here.

It's very unlikely law enforcement is committing so many resources to zoo porn. It's expensive to get the warrants to get information from internet providers, to use the IT people required and do the rest of the investigation, especially since there is legal precedent that IP addresses alone cannot be used to prosecute.

It's far more likely that it was either an anonymous/hacker type group that did their own investigation and sent evidence to police, or he slipped up and something or someone identifiable was filmed in a video, or the most likely scenario is that someone turned him in. Someone he met on the internet, someone who recognized him in a video, or a neighbor or friend he wasn't discrete with, then maybe a friend of a friend who got word.

Sure you may desperately want to come out to someone you trust, and they may never want to see you prosecuted or harmed, but if they don't feel the same way you do, they WILL gossip eventually, and it just takes a few extra connections to get your big secret in the hands of someone who is irrationally offended, and video evidence on a hard drive is all they need to "get another sexual deviant off the street."

John has a few drinks and is chatting with his friend Jim: "Hey that guy Bobby has sex with his dog, can you believe that? To each their own , eh? At least he's a nice guy though."

Jim the next day talking over lunch to his coworker: "Dude, John told me last night that Bobby has sex with dogs. Is that fucked up or what?"

Jim's Coworker the next night at a party "Hey that guy Bobby down the road is freakin pervert dog-fucker, probably rapes kids too. We should totally bust his ass."

And then evidence is found on the computers and so on.

And once child porn is found on his hard drive, we can jump in with the "moral majority" and condemn him? Uh, no.

[deleted]