And LOL the guy says bestiality is unhealthy- while he smokes his cigarette! XD Well buddy, while we outlaw everything that is unhealthy (and thereby reduce people's freedoms to make their own adult choices) I guess that means no more smokes for you either!
zetacolaMarooned 6 points on 2015-12-27 23:37:19
All these comments...
Is the rest of the world insane or is it just me?
Bestiality is wrong because sex purely for pleasure is wrong. Civilization is built on sex. Sex is probably the most unselfish act one can do because it creates another life. If there is any spark of divinity or power in human existence, it is in that power to create life as it literally changes our world. Every hero, every villain, every man and woman was created via sex. It must be treated with respect because by engaging in it with anyone but a mate we respect enough to make a family with, we turn it from an unselfish thing to a selfish thing and degrade it and ourselves in the process. This is why religion is so picky about what happens the bedroom, the casual disregard of sexuality can end civilization, and why anything that is sexual outside of love AND procreation is a perversion / abomination.
All the violence, bloodshed and destruction perpetrated because of religion. All the wars waged in its name... But let's not care about any of that noise because what has the power to make and unmake civilizations obviously is what happens in the bedroom between two consenting individuals.
People who believe in the tooth fairy essentially give themselves the power to judge people and decide what is degrading to the human race. It's just so crazy to me.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 2 points on 2015-12-28 00:06:02
ah, you found the person who hasn't actually had sex yet. they are in for a monumental disappointment.
[deleted] 1 point on 2015-12-28 10:31:18
[removed]
shadowwoofCanis, Vulpes, Felis 1 point on 2015-12-28 03:41:08
The mistake this guy makes is his unstated assumption that the animal is simply a means to an end, that the act exists in isolation to any other aspect of the dynamic with the animal. Perhaps that perspective is justified given the public image of the community, but if other motivations are considered, many of the arguments fall apart.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2015-12-28 08:53:41
The battle Aluzky is fighting in the comments is a nice example why trying to "teach" the public is useless and obsolete. Too many barriers to break, too many obstacles like religion to overcome.
You can try to dismantle the fake arguments, sure. But it quickly is being taken as semantic mumbo jumbo to justify sex with animals, regardless of the dilligence you come across with your counterarguments. We as a community would be a big step ahead when EVERYONE finally realizes that zoophilia isn´t the next big thing in sex lib. For the one person who might consider both sides of arguments, there are a million folks who only will hear what they want to hear, will recept what suits their prejudices; this will maybe gain us one new friend, but at what cost? Several thousands turning into new foes for the one we zoos "teach"? If you don´t know what a Phyrrus victory is, well, this is.....
I still don´t know why it seem so damn impossible for this community to simply shut the fuck up.Since this illusion of "zoo rights" was born, I never have seen any progress by aggressively going public, be it forming groups like ZETA, be it commenting zoo related youtube vids or anything else. Zoophilia does NOT belong into public...how long will you hallucinate any positive effects from "educational" acts like vids and comments? Reality has shown that by stepping into the light, our sitution rapidly worsens.
There will be no "zoo rights", the only thing we can and should ever hope for is some kind of "license" issued by the state, allowing someone to live with an animal after psychological tests of the human to exclude any possible harm for the animals and monthly tests of the animal partner´s psychical and physical wellbeing.
Repeat: THERE NEVER WILL BE SUCH A THING AS ZOO RIGHTS!!!
And by turning zoophilia to the public, you will only make any silent agreement between the authorities and the zoos impossible. Sawing onto the branch we´re all sitting on....
Too many egomaniacs in this, not a single neuron left to look onto the community with the eyes of an outsider, of someone with a heavy religious imprint, someone with fundamental disgust.
If I had known what will become of the thing we old farts got started when the internet appeared, I would never participated in this "zoo community" bullshit.
When I see discussions like Aluzky´s, it reminds me of running with your head into a massive concrete wall, thinking that you only have to run into it often enough to make the wall crumble....
zetacolaMarooned 1 point on 2015-12-29 01:14:42
Youtube philosophers aren't representative of real life people.
rasterwolf 2 points on 2015-12-29 05:25:11
Once again 30-30 making sense. Good. Keep hammering it into the skulls of the "out of the closet" zoos that going public is stupid. The above post should be a sticky.
I swear they always turn out to be some 19 year old who just figured out that there are other zoos in the world and they want to run rosy-cheeked twirling around through the streets yelling "I fuck my dog. Accept and appreciate me for this!" Society is not a zoo's friend. I mean, these days Andy Griffith has turned into a jack-boot black-ops wanna be and we have a legal system instead of a justice system with the sole purpose of separating people from their money. The schools are overrun with feminazis and statists and there are still young zoos out there that think society is going to give them some kind of special love? We don't need special rights if we stay invisible. If people want to encounter zoos they can come looking for us. We're like a rare, elusive species in the darkest forest. If the hunters don't ever see any of us or think about us, we're mostly safe. It only takes a few getting caught and the hunters discovering how tasty and satisfying the kill was and the whole species is in danger of extinction.
incognito-cognition 2 points on 2015-12-29 14:29:32
Since you and /u/30-30- are here talking on Reddit, I assume you both agree that staying invisible is not a preferred option for many people. It is human nature to seek community with people who understand you.
If staying completely invisible is not an option (and even then, assuming accidental disclosure or discovery never happens), then it becomes relevant to try to relax laws that would otherwise result in people and/or their animals being unjustly punished for a "crime" when none has been committed. Sure, one way to do this is to hide away and hope nobody brings up the subject ever, in the future of humanity. Another is to try and generate discussion and change.
Part of changing laws, and part of seeking acceptance, and part of human desire for companionship, is all about understanding why people hate you, or asking people to justify their attitudes. That can be done in a theoretical way, without "being out."
I think people would do well to remember it has been people accidentally not being invisible, not "'out' zoophiles trying to justify society's opinions," which have caused so much recent backlash against zoophiles, as well as other varieties of animal-humpers.
Stating an opinion in all caps does not make it true. Who are any of us to say what will happen in another country, or another century? And in any case, the "right" to not be prosecuted for something that isn't a crime is a pretty reasonable thing, when done responsibly.
If you want to whine about people "sawing the branch we're all sitting on" then go complain about the tens of thousands of people on BeastForum and similar sites. Go tell them to be silent and see how that works out. But a handful of people waging a theoretical war on a philosophical topic? I don't see the same level of moral indignation.
Likewise, although I don't plan on being involved with ZETA any time soon, the way I understand it is that they formed as a response to the established desire to illegalize sex with animals, not the other way around.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2015-12-30 09:58:48
Funny that you mention BF.... BF´s exactly the best way for an anti to collect evidence and reassure all the prejudices about the "zoo community" as porn fiends, egomaniacs, FATW (fuck anything that walks), supporting illegal porn industry, animal abusing retards.
When OpBeast managed to shut down Bf for over a month, I considered it a victory for true zoos. Without this degenerate shithole of animal porn fiends, we as a community would be better off 100%.
You need to check out the overall picture and see how all is connected...even when it comes to "waging a theoretical war" below a youtube vid. It´s the general public image that lets outsiders think of zoophiles as animal molesters,involved in illegal activities. It´s fencehoppers, porn distributing sites as BF and the general undertone of the people commenting there, it´s about all of the proverbial "black spots" of "zoophilia". You have to realize that it´s all of that what forms and shapes the public image; our tiny little voices in here dissolve quicker than a fart in a hurricane.
To correct you, I have to say that ZETA wasn´t formed as a response to the impending illegalization of animal sex. ZETA was founded 2009, the first official petition was brought up by Silke Lautenschläger in 2010. ZETA was formed after some individuals like Michael Kiok, Oliver Burdinski and others tried to hammer down their own porn friendly agenda into the heads of the users of several non related fora. Actually the anti scene only formed after they finally had a visible enemy to focus their attacks on. It really is like I say: without ZETA, there would be no organized anti zoo scene in Germany.
Another thing I need you to answer: what exactly are "we" fighting for? Free and legal animal sex footage sold at your local grocery stores? The "right" for anyone, even non zoo people to "try" out animal genitalia? The "right" to fencehop? What exactly are all of you "zoo rights" folks talking about? Opening up the "animal sex" closet for everyone to take what he wants, when he wants?
Yeah, this would be heaven for all of the wannatry suckers, for the porn industry (just another segment to exploit and turn into some cash), for the ones only in it for the relatively easy chance to get laid. But imagine what this would mean for the animals. No one could keep his animal outside anymore without steady supervision. It would not take more than ten minutes until some random asshole would try to execute "his right" of "free sexual expression".
I always get the notion of people "fighting" for some illusionary 24/7 orgy when I hear about "zoo rights". It´s sad that these "rights" only aim at the "zoo" humans, the animals and their right to be left alone from some random wanker are, as usual, neglected.
I tell you something: zoophilia is something REVOLUTIONARY. Seeing an animal as an equal partner is something that severely endangers the generally accepted capitalistic commercial exploitation of animals. There will be no zoo rights without crushing our capitalistic system and installing something less exploitative, something that grants animals their own rights. Would you abstain from your steak, from leather, from wool, from milk and other dairy products for your sexual liberties? How much are you gonna give for your freedom?
Everything has its price; the so called "zoo rights" activists usually try to evade paying for their freedom. The activists always want to change OTHER people instead of changing themselves. You won´t be able to turn the outside world into a zoo friendly environment, guaranteed. Again, the only image I get is of some young fool who is convinced that he only needs to run with his head into a massive concrete wall long enough to make it crumble...but anyone with a few intact neurons can tell that the results won´t be a crumbling wall, but a head turned into a bloody pulp.
And what exactly would change? As if laws are the problem. Although being legal in many countries today, gays still are hated. Since we´re already there, let me hammer it down your skull again: the gay rights movement would not have succeeded like they did without AIDS/HIV. It wasn´t all of the elaborate sermon of gay rights that opened the average person´s heart, it was the gruesome pictures of gay men suffering from this terrible disease. What really made people change their minds was the way the gay scene reacted to this threat by using condoms. The normal people were surprised that even a gay could act responsibly and not being a slave to his sex drive. The gays joined the fight against HIV and became some sort of ally of the normal people. The acceptance of homosexuality never was a matter of "finding the right words" or "educating the public"; it simply was making a statement by action. For the zoos, such a statement towards society would be to condemn animal pornograph, fencehopping, sex parties, sharing animals, pimping out animals...well, basically anything that these "BF zoos" are so excited about. I live a life without denial of my sexuality, but I also don´t jump into people´s faces with my bare ass. At all of my riding clubs, the others at least had a suspicion abut my mare and me, but since I never forced them to "tolerate" me, they just considered my love for my mare something not worthy making a big fuzz about.They left me alone...and I never wanted more than to be left alone to live my life. Stil I believe that the thing we should fight for is a "state licensed and accompanied zoophilia", with psychological tests for the zoo and monthly unschedueled visits from the vet to ensure the animals well being. I still think that zoophilia does not belong into the public, I still think that any kind of advertising it (porn, how tos, fantasy stories etc) should be prohibited. There never will be unregulated freedom, any compromise made with the authorities would turn out as a regulated form of zoophilia ( only one animal per zoo, no sharing, no porn making, no other animals , no humans )...as I said before, everything will come with a cost. All I have heard from the "zoo rights" activists is "Me wants me freedom to fuck animals"...but what are you willing to give, to sacrifice for your freedom? What if your government allows zoophilia, but only with one animal and putting you into jail if you ever have sex with a human? What will you decide for, living with an animal or a human? Answering that is more of a decider if you really are a zoophile or only someone who seeks "sexual diversity", even beyond all the legal possibilities. What are you willing to give for your freedom?
incognito-cognition 1 point on 2015-12-31 03:19:43
Funny that you mention BF.... BF´s exactly the best way for an anti to collect evidence and reassure all the prejudices about the "zoo community" as porn fiends, egomaniacs, FATW (fuck anything that walks), supporting illegal porn industry, animal abusing retards
That is, of course, precisely why I mentioned it.
pick_me_apart 1 point on 2015-12-31 09:42:55
holy shit this comment is wild
rasterwolf 1 point on 2015-12-31 04:50:36
Incognito said "And in any case, the "right" to not be prosecuted for something that isn't a crime is a pretty reasonable thing, when done responsibly."
My reply is this: Until zoos and bestialists started getting noticed, in most places it WASN'T a crime. Then some activist gets wind of a few too many zoo articles and they propose a law to fix the prosecution difficulties. I mean, what legislator is going to be caught voting against such a bill?
So 20 years ago there were few laws. Now all but one or two states have them and even liberal parts of northern Europe have slapped some hefty laws on it. So to all those "out of the closet" zoos: (sarc) Thanks a friggin lot! And keep up the good work. Doing the same thing that has worked wonders in the past is going to make our lives even better! (/sarc)
If the rare prosecution and related laws are ever going to be relaxed, it'll come through legal challenges to the whole "victimless crime" sodomy law sets in so many states. Most people would have to agree that perversions are not the governments business and frankly, most people have their own little secrets anyhow. We might sneak through the hole in the barbwire that the gays blast if we keep our heads down and go with the flow. Otherwise, if we get too much notice, they'll be sure to put in exceptions just for us and the gays wont fight it because whats in it for them?
incognito-cognition 2 points on 2016-01-03 13:57:23
Until zoos and bestialists started getting noticed, in most places it WASN'T a crime. Then some activist gets wind of a few too many zoo articles
[...]
So 20 years ago there were few laws. Now all but one or two states have them
[...]
So to all those "out of the closet" zoos: (sarc) Thanks a friggin lot!
I think you've got a few things out of sequence and incorrectly attributed. For one thing, the big variable in the last 20 years was not that suddenly people tried to make zoophilia accepted, it's that the Internet cast a brighter light on it... and to some extent also that social conservatives are feeling more threatened and need new crusades. (By the way, the statement "in most places it WASN'T a crime" twenty years ago disagrees with my findings, so if you have evidence I would appreciate some pointers to set me straight.)
The internet attention was not originally focused on people seeking acceptance, but rather on a number of rather stupid things people have done, such as the mister hands incident (directly responsible for a huge amount of the new laws), people on BF posting amateur porn of themselves, etc.
Therefore I think it is misleading at best, and a bit condescending at worst, to suggest that efforts to have rational discussion about sexual orientation are at the root of the issue, or that people who came out of the woodwork to fight bigotry are somehow responsible for the bigotry.
The whole notion of "if only nobody ever knew about this, everything would be fine" is both a complete fantasy-land, and irrelevant now that people do know about it. The boulder already fell off the mountaintop, whatever the cause. Sure, one or two people are going to just get squished if they try and hold it back, but if you develop the right infrastructure - perhaps a culvert of some academic studies well in advance - and/or if you chip away at it gradually, eventually it will become less destructive.
TL;DR Closing our eyes and ears will not stop bad things from happening. And who are we to say how the world will be in 50 or 100 years.
rasterwolf 1 point on 2016-01-03 15:02:02
Yeah we don't know what the world will be like in 50 to 100 years. In WW2 Europe we'd have been put against a wall and riddled with bullets along with the other undesirables. Honestly its a serious enough subject I dont think we need 20 year old enthusiasts making any publicity pushes.
At this point, at least most of the time bestiality is still a joke and not really seen as too big of a deal by most. Men especially arent that threatened by it. Edgy cartoons love it-- Family Guy has it every other episode. But if we start really rubbing people's faces in it we're going to see a phase change from humor to disgust by some percentage of the population, especially women. Note that women are almost always the ones championing anti-zoo laws and bringing the issue to the attention of the lawmakers.
Closing our eyes and ears, as you say, wont stop bad things from happening. But opening our mouths is very likely to encourage bad things to happen. I have a lot of animals. My life is built around them. Its expensive to own land and feed horses etc. Last thing I need is people getting serious when they wonder about that single guy with all the goats. I have everything to lose. I don't need some furry gamer with a dog in his mom's basement starting up a pro-zoo campaign for me and obviously he is not the one with something to lose if it turns to shit.
incognito-cognition 2 points on 2016-01-04 19:38:38
As far as putting ideas in people's heads and those with nothing to lose sometimes having accidentally negative impact on others, I agree with you 100%. But it sounds like your concern is that the topic will be discussed irresponsibly (too overtly, by someone with too little knowledge) - I don't know if those concerns necessarily apply to it being discussed at all. For example, responsible behavioral research about the impact on humans and pets, responsible medical research about zoonotic diseases, etc., could be helpful, but that will be hard to achieve if there is no pool of possible participants, or if you can't even discuss the topic openly.
The bigger question to me, though, is: Is it realistic (let alone desirable) to expect that it will never get discussed? Assuming nobody has the power of global mind control and it does get discussed, isn't it better to guide the conversation in a logic-based fashion rather than sitting back to let it be guided by the present-day versions of Geraldo or Jerry Springer likening the entire category of zoophiles to animal rapists and spreading the attractive but false messages along those lines into the minds of the public and of politicians?
Or for that matter, the risk of letting any of the vocal and somewhat-crazy self-proclaimed zoophiles go unchallenged when they speak for the entire group? (The vocal minority concept).
I'm not saying I have all the answers here either, it just seems a little shaky to predicate one's own sanity/safety on hoping a topic will stay in the dark forever. Especially when, as you indicate, it has already been brought out of the dark for whatever reason.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 0 points on 2015-12-29 21:48:22
I like your forest analogy Raster.
BaaxtenCanines, equines, cetaceans 0 points on 2015-12-28 12:31:49
People know what it means (to call someone Autistic). To use that word in this sort of context - even if it is not... even if it does not reflect the way people with autism think... in real life - that when you describe something as "autistic", we all know what it means. We all know what we're saying. We're saying that someone is being too logical for their own good.
I'm not sure if there such a thing as "too logical." Is this a way rearranging "you're making too much sense for me" into a phrase that works in your favour?
I mean this man no disrespect - in fact I applaud his effort to justify his views without using the consent argument - I'm merely confused about this term. Can someone clarify?
KynophileDog lover 1 point on 2015-12-28 15:26:12
I find it interesting that he came to the same conclusions as Neil Levy in his paper. Yeah, all the common arguments against bestiality fail, but it still can't be right, because its a transgression against humanity itself in some undefined way.
TotesMessenger 14 points on 2015-12-30 03:04:08
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.\(Info ^/ Contact)
AXwoofCanines + 1 point on 2016-01-15 00:04:33
Before even watching this video, I noticed something... strange with a user's avatar in the comments:
cooldaddyjames2814 uses the exact same picture of the wolf with a melon I had for Zoophiles-Forum, pointing at the fact that it's the same format which i cropped myself with paint to this size...
/r/zoophilia archive
And LOL the guy says bestiality is unhealthy- while he smokes his cigarette! XD Well buddy, while we outlaw everything that is unhealthy (and thereby reduce people's freedoms to make their own adult choices) I guess that means no more smokes for you either!
All these comments...
Is the rest of the world insane or is it just me?
All the violence, bloodshed and destruction perpetrated because of religion. All the wars waged in its name... But let's not care about any of that noise because what has the power to make and unmake civilizations obviously is what happens in the bedroom between two consenting individuals.
People who believe in the tooth fairy essentially give themselves the power to judge people and decide what is degrading to the human race. It's just so crazy to me.
ah, you found the person who hasn't actually had sex yet. they are in for a monumental disappointment.
[removed]
The mistake this guy makes is his unstated assumption that the animal is simply a means to an end, that the act exists in isolation to any other aspect of the dynamic with the animal. Perhaps that perspective is justified given the public image of the community, but if other motivations are considered, many of the arguments fall apart.
The battle Aluzky is fighting in the comments is a nice example why trying to "teach" the public is useless and obsolete. Too many barriers to break, too many obstacles like religion to overcome. You can try to dismantle the fake arguments, sure. But it quickly is being taken as semantic mumbo jumbo to justify sex with animals, regardless of the dilligence you come across with your counterarguments. We as a community would be a big step ahead when EVERYONE finally realizes that zoophilia isn´t the next big thing in sex lib. For the one person who might consider both sides of arguments, there are a million folks who only will hear what they want to hear, will recept what suits their prejudices; this will maybe gain us one new friend, but at what cost? Several thousands turning into new foes for the one we zoos "teach"? If you don´t know what a Phyrrus victory is, well, this is..... I still don´t know why it seem so damn impossible for this community to simply shut the fuck up.Since this illusion of "zoo rights" was born, I never have seen any progress by aggressively going public, be it forming groups like ZETA, be it commenting zoo related youtube vids or anything else. Zoophilia does NOT belong into public...how long will you hallucinate any positive effects from "educational" acts like vids and comments? Reality has shown that by stepping into the light, our sitution rapidly worsens. There will be no "zoo rights", the only thing we can and should ever hope for is some kind of "license" issued by the state, allowing someone to live with an animal after psychological tests of the human to exclude any possible harm for the animals and monthly tests of the animal partner´s psychical and physical wellbeing. Repeat: THERE NEVER WILL BE SUCH A THING AS ZOO RIGHTS!!! And by turning zoophilia to the public, you will only make any silent agreement between the authorities and the zoos impossible. Sawing onto the branch we´re all sitting on.... Too many egomaniacs in this, not a single neuron left to look onto the community with the eyes of an outsider, of someone with a heavy religious imprint, someone with fundamental disgust. If I had known what will become of the thing we old farts got started when the internet appeared, I would never participated in this "zoo community" bullshit. When I see discussions like Aluzky´s, it reminds me of running with your head into a massive concrete wall, thinking that you only have to run into it often enough to make the wall crumble....
Youtube philosophers aren't representative of real life people.
Once again 30-30 making sense. Good. Keep hammering it into the skulls of the "out of the closet" zoos that going public is stupid. The above post should be a sticky.
I swear they always turn out to be some 19 year old who just figured out that there are other zoos in the world and they want to run rosy-cheeked twirling around through the streets yelling "I fuck my dog. Accept and appreciate me for this!" Society is not a zoo's friend. I mean, these days Andy Griffith has turned into a jack-boot black-ops wanna be and we have a legal system instead of a justice system with the sole purpose of separating people from their money. The schools are overrun with feminazis and statists and there are still young zoos out there that think society is going to give them some kind of special love? We don't need special rights if we stay invisible. If people want to encounter zoos they can come looking for us. We're like a rare, elusive species in the darkest forest. If the hunters don't ever see any of us or think about us, we're mostly safe. It only takes a few getting caught and the hunters discovering how tasty and satisfying the kill was and the whole species is in danger of extinction.
Since you and /u/30-30- are here talking on Reddit, I assume you both agree that staying invisible is not a preferred option for many people. It is human nature to seek community with people who understand you.
If staying completely invisible is not an option (and even then, assuming accidental disclosure or discovery never happens), then it becomes relevant to try to relax laws that would otherwise result in people and/or their animals being unjustly punished for a "crime" when none has been committed. Sure, one way to do this is to hide away and hope nobody brings up the subject ever, in the future of humanity. Another is to try and generate discussion and change.
Part of changing laws, and part of seeking acceptance, and part of human desire for companionship, is all about understanding why people hate you, or asking people to justify their attitudes. That can be done in a theoretical way, without "being out."
I think people would do well to remember it has been people accidentally not being invisible, not "'out' zoophiles trying to justify society's opinions," which have caused so much recent backlash against zoophiles, as well as other varieties of animal-humpers.
Stating an opinion in all caps does not make it true. Who are any of us to say what will happen in another country, or another century? And in any case, the "right" to not be prosecuted for something that isn't a crime is a pretty reasonable thing, when done responsibly.
If you want to whine about people "sawing the branch we're all sitting on" then go complain about the tens of thousands of people on BeastForum and similar sites. Go tell them to be silent and see how that works out. But a handful of people waging a theoretical war on a philosophical topic? I don't see the same level of moral indignation.
Likewise, although I don't plan on being involved with ZETA any time soon, the way I understand it is that they formed as a response to the established desire to illegalize sex with animals, not the other way around.
Funny that you mention BF.... BF´s exactly the best way for an anti to collect evidence and reassure all the prejudices about the "zoo community" as porn fiends, egomaniacs, FATW (fuck anything that walks), supporting illegal porn industry, animal abusing retards. When OpBeast managed to shut down Bf for over a month, I considered it a victory for true zoos. Without this degenerate shithole of animal porn fiends, we as a community would be better off 100%. You need to check out the overall picture and see how all is connected...even when it comes to "waging a theoretical war" below a youtube vid. It´s the general public image that lets outsiders think of zoophiles as animal molesters,involved in illegal activities. It´s fencehoppers, porn distributing sites as BF and the general undertone of the people commenting there, it´s about all of the proverbial "black spots" of "zoophilia". You have to realize that it´s all of that what forms and shapes the public image; our tiny little voices in here dissolve quicker than a fart in a hurricane. To correct you, I have to say that ZETA wasn´t formed as a response to the impending illegalization of animal sex. ZETA was founded 2009, the first official petition was brought up by Silke Lautenschläger in 2010. ZETA was formed after some individuals like Michael Kiok, Oliver Burdinski and others tried to hammer down their own porn friendly agenda into the heads of the users of several non related fora. Actually the anti scene only formed after they finally had a visible enemy to focus their attacks on. It really is like I say: without ZETA, there would be no organized anti zoo scene in Germany.
Another thing I need you to answer: what exactly are "we" fighting for? Free and legal animal sex footage sold at your local grocery stores? The "right" for anyone, even non zoo people to "try" out animal genitalia? The "right" to fencehop? What exactly are all of you "zoo rights" folks talking about? Opening up the "animal sex" closet for everyone to take what he wants, when he wants? Yeah, this would be heaven for all of the wannatry suckers, for the porn industry (just another segment to exploit and turn into some cash), for the ones only in it for the relatively easy chance to get laid. But imagine what this would mean for the animals. No one could keep his animal outside anymore without steady supervision. It would not take more than ten minutes until some random asshole would try to execute "his right" of "free sexual expression". I always get the notion of people "fighting" for some illusionary 24/7 orgy when I hear about "zoo rights". It´s sad that these "rights" only aim at the "zoo" humans, the animals and their right to be left alone from some random wanker are, as usual, neglected. I tell you something: zoophilia is something REVOLUTIONARY. Seeing an animal as an equal partner is something that severely endangers the generally accepted capitalistic commercial exploitation of animals. There will be no zoo rights without crushing our capitalistic system and installing something less exploitative, something that grants animals their own rights. Would you abstain from your steak, from leather, from wool, from milk and other dairy products for your sexual liberties? How much are you gonna give for your freedom? Everything has its price; the so called "zoo rights" activists usually try to evade paying for their freedom. The activists always want to change OTHER people instead of changing themselves. You won´t be able to turn the outside world into a zoo friendly environment, guaranteed. Again, the only image I get is of some young fool who is convinced that he only needs to run with his head into a massive concrete wall long enough to make it crumble...but anyone with a few intact neurons can tell that the results won´t be a crumbling wall, but a head turned into a bloody pulp. And what exactly would change? As if laws are the problem. Although being legal in many countries today, gays still are hated. Since we´re already there, let me hammer it down your skull again: the gay rights movement would not have succeeded like they did without AIDS/HIV. It wasn´t all of the elaborate sermon of gay rights that opened the average person´s heart, it was the gruesome pictures of gay men suffering from this terrible disease. What really made people change their minds was the way the gay scene reacted to this threat by using condoms. The normal people were surprised that even a gay could act responsibly and not being a slave to his sex drive. The gays joined the fight against HIV and became some sort of ally of the normal people. The acceptance of homosexuality never was a matter of "finding the right words" or "educating the public"; it simply was making a statement by action. For the zoos, such a statement towards society would be to condemn animal pornograph, fencehopping, sex parties, sharing animals, pimping out animals...well, basically anything that these "BF zoos" are so excited about. I live a life without denial of my sexuality, but I also don´t jump into people´s faces with my bare ass. At all of my riding clubs, the others at least had a suspicion abut my mare and me, but since I never forced them to "tolerate" me, they just considered my love for my mare something not worthy making a big fuzz about.They left me alone...and I never wanted more than to be left alone to live my life. Stil I believe that the thing we should fight for is a "state licensed and accompanied zoophilia", with psychological tests for the zoo and monthly unschedueled visits from the vet to ensure the animals well being. I still think that zoophilia does not belong into the public, I still think that any kind of advertising it (porn, how tos, fantasy stories etc) should be prohibited. There never will be unregulated freedom, any compromise made with the authorities would turn out as a regulated form of zoophilia ( only one animal per zoo, no sharing, no porn making, no other animals , no humans )...as I said before, everything will come with a cost. All I have heard from the "zoo rights" activists is "Me wants me freedom to fuck animals"...but what are you willing to give, to sacrifice for your freedom? What if your government allows zoophilia, but only with one animal and putting you into jail if you ever have sex with a human? What will you decide for, living with an animal or a human? Answering that is more of a decider if you really are a zoophile or only someone who seeks "sexual diversity", even beyond all the legal possibilities. What are you willing to give for your freedom?
That is, of course, precisely why I mentioned it.
holy shit this comment is wild
Incognito said "And in any case, the "right" to not be prosecuted for something that isn't a crime is a pretty reasonable thing, when done responsibly."
My reply is this: Until zoos and bestialists started getting noticed, in most places it WASN'T a crime. Then some activist gets wind of a few too many zoo articles and they propose a law to fix the prosecution difficulties. I mean, what legislator is going to be caught voting against such a bill?
So 20 years ago there were few laws. Now all but one or two states have them and even liberal parts of northern Europe have slapped some hefty laws on it. So to all those "out of the closet" zoos: (sarc) Thanks a friggin lot! And keep up the good work. Doing the same thing that has worked wonders in the past is going to make our lives even better! (/sarc)
If the rare prosecution and related laws are ever going to be relaxed, it'll come through legal challenges to the whole "victimless crime" sodomy law sets in so many states. Most people would have to agree that perversions are not the governments business and frankly, most people have their own little secrets anyhow. We might sneak through the hole in the barbwire that the gays blast if we keep our heads down and go with the flow. Otherwise, if we get too much notice, they'll be sure to put in exceptions just for us and the gays wont fight it because whats in it for them?
I think you've got a few things out of sequence and incorrectly attributed. For one thing, the big variable in the last 20 years was not that suddenly people tried to make zoophilia accepted, it's that the Internet cast a brighter light on it... and to some extent also that social conservatives are feeling more threatened and need new crusades. (By the way, the statement "in most places it WASN'T a crime" twenty years ago disagrees with my findings, so if you have evidence I would appreciate some pointers to set me straight.)
The internet attention was not originally focused on people seeking acceptance, but rather on a number of rather stupid things people have done, such as the mister hands incident (directly responsible for a huge amount of the new laws), people on BF posting amateur porn of themselves, etc.
Therefore I think it is misleading at best, and a bit condescending at worst, to suggest that efforts to have rational discussion about sexual orientation are at the root of the issue, or that people who came out of the woodwork to fight bigotry are somehow responsible for the bigotry.
The whole notion of "if only nobody ever knew about this, everything would be fine" is both a complete fantasy-land, and irrelevant now that people do know about it. The boulder already fell off the mountaintop, whatever the cause. Sure, one or two people are going to just get squished if they try and hold it back, but if you develop the right infrastructure - perhaps a culvert of some academic studies well in advance - and/or if you chip away at it gradually, eventually it will become less destructive.
TL;DR Closing our eyes and ears will not stop bad things from happening. And who are we to say how the world will be in 50 or 100 years.
Yeah we don't know what the world will be like in 50 to 100 years. In WW2 Europe we'd have been put against a wall and riddled with bullets along with the other undesirables. Honestly its a serious enough subject I dont think we need 20 year old enthusiasts making any publicity pushes.
At this point, at least most of the time bestiality is still a joke and not really seen as too big of a deal by most. Men especially arent that threatened by it. Edgy cartoons love it-- Family Guy has it every other episode. But if we start really rubbing people's faces in it we're going to see a phase change from humor to disgust by some percentage of the population, especially women. Note that women are almost always the ones championing anti-zoo laws and bringing the issue to the attention of the lawmakers.
Closing our eyes and ears, as you say, wont stop bad things from happening. But opening our mouths is very likely to encourage bad things to happen. I have a lot of animals. My life is built around them. Its expensive to own land and feed horses etc. Last thing I need is people getting serious when they wonder about that single guy with all the goats. I have everything to lose. I don't need some furry gamer with a dog in his mom's basement starting up a pro-zoo campaign for me and obviously he is not the one with something to lose if it turns to shit.
As far as putting ideas in people's heads and those with nothing to lose sometimes having accidentally negative impact on others, I agree with you 100%. But it sounds like your concern is that the topic will be discussed irresponsibly (too overtly, by someone with too little knowledge) - I don't know if those concerns necessarily apply to it being discussed at all. For example, responsible behavioral research about the impact on humans and pets, responsible medical research about zoonotic diseases, etc., could be helpful, but that will be hard to achieve if there is no pool of possible participants, or if you can't even discuss the topic openly.
The bigger question to me, though, is: Is it realistic (let alone desirable) to expect that it will never get discussed? Assuming nobody has the power of global mind control and it does get discussed, isn't it better to guide the conversation in a logic-based fashion rather than sitting back to let it be guided by the present-day versions of Geraldo or Jerry Springer likening the entire category of zoophiles to animal rapists and spreading the attractive but false messages along those lines into the minds of the public and of politicians?
Or for that matter, the risk of letting any of the vocal and somewhat-crazy self-proclaimed zoophiles go unchallenged when they speak for the entire group? (The vocal minority concept).
I'm not saying I have all the answers here either, it just seems a little shaky to predicate one's own sanity/safety on hoping a topic will stay in the dark forever. Especially when, as you indicate, it has already been brought out of the dark for whatever reason.
I like your forest analogy Raster.
I'm not sure if there such a thing as "too logical." Is this a way rearranging "you're making too much sense for me" into a phrase that works in your favour?
I mean this man no disrespect - in fact I applaud his effort to justify his views without using the consent argument - I'm merely confused about this term. Can someone clarify?
I find it interesting that he came to the same conclusions as Neil Levy in his paper. Yeah, all the common arguments against bestiality fail, but it still can't be right, because its a transgression against humanity itself in some undefined way.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. \(Info ^/ Contact)
Before even watching this video, I noticed something... strange with a user's avatar in the comments:
cooldaddyjames2814 uses the exact same picture of the wolf with a melon I had for Zoophiles-Forum, pointing at the fact that it's the same format which i cropped myself with paint to this size...