It's difficult to make an argument against them, because they never really explain why animals need to be "protected" from sex. Maybe this?
However, in general, an animal only does this if it is used to such behavior, i.e. it has been trained to such unnatural behavior and has thus been artificially focused on a human sexual partner (Frey, Sodomie 2).
But since it includes to words "unnatural behavior" you know it's shitty reasoning...
In recognizing animals as our sentient fellow creatures then we should comply with their demand to be afforded the same respect for life, dignity, physical integrity,
I agree, but they do not do award animals this. They advocate depriving them of the agency to choose their own sexual partners. Earlier they say
People who cannot assert their legal positions on their own, (such as children, disabled or other persons who entangled in special power or dependency relationship with the perpetrator), are rightfully protected by modern laws through restrictive acts. Sexual contacts with these persons are prohibited because of their basic need of protection
which I believe is bad reasoning too. Is there not a huge debate about mentally disabled people and sexuality? Are there not good arguments made that while they may need special protection from sexual exploitation, laws that generally ban sex with mentally disabled people effectively deprives them of their right to engage in sex?
and the exploitation of animals for sexual purposes can be brought to an end, whereby ultimately, the awareness for a relationship between mankind and animal based on actual partnership and not on exploitation, would be intensified.
A bold statement, considering they themselves say that their position is only based on assumptions:
Because of the communicational barrier between man and animal it naturally remains unclear, what exactly an animal feels during a zoophilic act, that does not evidence any substantial pain, suffering or damage. As it is the case with humans it has to be assumed, that the substantial damage of the wellbeing of animals can only partially be reconstructed from subsequent clinical findings (Luy 3). One cannot even say whether those animals that were sexually imprinted to human beings feel good during sexual intercourse, with a person. Whether zoophilia in fact ever happens on mutual consent, i.e. is wanted and appreciated by the animal, can only be guessed. Rather one has to act on the assumption, that the animal’s consent is forced either through an artificial fixation on a person or by use of other psychological violence. The labeling of such acts as "animal love" or "sexuality in partnership", as people affected, in order to stress the strong emotional bond, often call them, misjudges such circumstances and seem euphemistic in the light of the different methods in practice (Hunold 36; Massen 105).
30-30amator equae 5 points on 2015-11-27 23:49:55
Guesses and assumptions, false appliance of human moral constructs on non human animals..nothing new under the sun, I guess. Still, no text will "end zoophilia", be it as elaborated and full of efforts as this swiss try.
It´s like debating about the existence of "god"...no side can actually prove anything, so all that remains is pure beliefs and biased, selective perceptions. Business as usual.
GermanZoo 2 points on 2015-11-28 09:45:26
at the moment i am doing a research on their Article but I can give you a quick round up: the Yellowpress can't read and/or calculate.
According to Tier im Recht itself there is a freaking rise in Animalsex Cases including horses, but if you read their Paper the Numbers therein shows a different light (namely only 1 Animalsex Case in 2014, and these includes a Cow, not a horse). The biggest Problem in the claims of 10% Juristic Cases involving Horses is the amount of not proven cases. Tier im Recht calculates with the total number of Cases which simply gives a false impression as they also calculate with Cases that couldn't legally prooven. Also the 10% is a false round up. Tier im Recht claims that 9.4% of every Horsecase from the last 5 years is an Animalsex one (btw. without the claim of any rise dear yellowpress).
as soon as I finished my investigation I will link it here (but as I am working on it alone by myself at the moment I can not do it over night)
zoozooz 1 point on 2015-11-28 10:18:33
From only reading the article I'd say the biggest problem is that zoophiles, animal cruelty and "maltreatment" cases are all muddled together.
The 20 Minuten newspaper reported that experts believe there are 10,000 people in Switzerland “predisposed” to zoophilia.
And every single one of those is going out at night to be cruel to horses, right.
GermanZoo 2 points on 2015-11-28 10:32:06
That is always a Problem when argumenting with animal protection Organisations. For them, everything is the same. Think about it, Tier im Recht even analise the Swiss law against Zoopühilia and I quote: "[...]Article 16 section 2 lit. j TSchV speaks explicitly of "sexually motivated" acts. Decisive for the criminality is therefore not the objectively recognizable sexual reference of the relevant conduct, but the underlying motivation of the culprit. Thus makes also punishable, who kisses an animal for example in sexual intent., Hugging intimately fondles or strokes, even if he neither touched the genitals of the animal nor during or after the act itself [...]" Ofcourse Kissing a Horse is as cruel for the Animal as Raping them...what am I thinking, but wait, it isn't cruel when done for Meat? Raping a Mare in therms of Insemination is not cruel as I am not turned on by it? If I would be turned on by doing so it would be against the law? Let's face it...this is the same Bullshit as the German Law.
zoozooz 1 point on 2015-11-28 10:47:57
but if you read their Paper
Just in case it isn't clear to the people here: The pdf is not related to and probably much older than the article here. I just searched something for context what kind of organization they are and what kind of arguments they bring to the table.
It's basically a begging the question fallacy the animal rights people are using, If they where making arguments that is. They are just making assertions and nothing else.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 1 point on 2015-11-30 02:49:40
Where are they getting the magic number of 10,000?
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2015-11-30 17:08:39
I recon there are at least 160,000 zoos in Switzerland. If only 6% of us are fence-hopping equiphiles, 10k might be what they can see...
larblac 1 point on 2015-11-30 20:09:05
Hahaha, tabloids.
GermanZoo 1 point on 2016-01-22 13:15:30
I'm still on the Topic. I got in Contact with TIR myself, but verify their Paper is hell of a job since there is a lot of Lawspeak involved so stand by.
/r/zoophilia archive
An even worse article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/fears-over-rise-in-horse-sex-abuse-in-switzerland-a6751841.html
I searched a bit, but they don't publish much english material. Only http://www.tierimrecht.org/en/PDF/Zoophilia_an_Unrecognized_Problem_in_Animal_Welfare_Legislation.pdf
It's difficult to make an argument against them, because they never really explain why animals need to be "protected" from sex. Maybe this?
But since it includes to words "unnatural behavior" you know it's shitty reasoning...
I agree, but they do not do award animals this. They advocate depriving them of the agency to choose their own sexual partners. Earlier they say
which I believe is bad reasoning too. Is there not a huge debate about mentally disabled people and sexuality? Are there not good arguments made that while they may need special protection from sexual exploitation, laws that generally ban sex with mentally disabled people effectively deprives them of their right to engage in sex?
A bold statement, considering they themselves say that their position is only based on assumptions:
Guesses and assumptions, false appliance of human moral constructs on non human animals..nothing new under the sun, I guess. Still, no text will "end zoophilia", be it as elaborated and full of efforts as this swiss try. It´s like debating about the existence of "god"...no side can actually prove anything, so all that remains is pure beliefs and biased, selective perceptions. Business as usual.
at the moment i am doing a research on their Article but I can give you a quick round up: the Yellowpress can't read and/or calculate.
According to Tier im Recht itself there is a freaking rise in Animalsex Cases including horses, but if you read their Paper the Numbers therein shows a different light (namely only 1 Animalsex Case in 2014, and these includes a Cow, not a horse). The biggest Problem in the claims of 10% Juristic Cases involving Horses is the amount of not proven cases. Tier im Recht calculates with the total number of Cases which simply gives a false impression as they also calculate with Cases that couldn't legally prooven. Also the 10% is a false round up. Tier im Recht claims that 9.4% of every Horsecase from the last 5 years is an Animalsex one (btw. without the claim of any rise dear yellowpress).
as soon as I finished my investigation I will link it here (but as I am working on it alone by myself at the moment I can not do it over night)
From only reading the article I'd say the biggest problem is that zoophiles, animal cruelty and "maltreatment" cases are all muddled together.
And every single one of those is going out at night to be cruel to horses, right.
That is always a Problem when argumenting with animal protection Organisations. For them, everything is the same. Think about it, Tier im Recht even analise the Swiss law against Zoopühilia and I quote: "[...]Article 16 section 2 lit. j TSchV speaks explicitly of "sexually motivated" acts. Decisive for the criminality is therefore not the objectively recognizable sexual reference of the relevant conduct, but the underlying motivation of the culprit. Thus makes also punishable, who kisses an animal for example in sexual intent., Hugging intimately fondles or strokes, even if he neither touched the genitals of the animal nor during or after the act itself [...]" Ofcourse Kissing a Horse is as cruel for the Animal as Raping them...what am I thinking, but wait, it isn't cruel when done for Meat? Raping a Mare in therms of Insemination is not cruel as I am not turned on by it? If I would be turned on by doing so it would be against the law? Let's face it...this is the same Bullshit as the German Law.
Just in case it isn't clear to the people here: The pdf is not related to and probably much older than the article here. I just searched something for context what kind of organization they are and what kind of arguments they bring to the table.
I am referring to their actual Paper where the claims are from ( http://www.tierimrecht.org/de/veroeffentlichungen/gutachten/SchweizerTierschutzstrafpraxis2014.pdf ). sorry these Paper seems to be in german only
[deleted]
[deleted]
http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/was-hat-tier-im-recht-da-angerichtet-die-welt-wiehert-ueber-schweizer-pferde-sex-id4409889.html
And it arrived at the dailymail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337270/Experts-warn-big-rise-sex-attacks-horses-say-10-000-people-Switzerland-predisposed-twisted-animals.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/switzerlands-horse-sex-crisis-revealed-6919321
I don't even
"official"??
It's basically a begging the question fallacy the animal rights people are using, If they where making arguments that is. They are just making assertions and nothing else.
Where are they getting the magic number of 10,000?
I recon there are at least 160,000 zoos in Switzerland. If only 6% of us are fence-hopping equiphiles, 10k might be what they can see...
Hahaha, tabloids.
I'm still on the Topic. I got in Contact with TIR myself, but verify their Paper is hell of a job since there is a lot of Lawspeak involved so stand by.
Is it really worth the time?