I. A person commits, bestiality by intentionally committing any of the following acts:
inconsistent spelling of bestiality
a comma that doesn't belong there
(c) Photographing or filming or distributing such photograpsh or films, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, of a person engaged in sexual contact or sexual penetration with an animal.
typo: photograpsh
And I haven't even looked in detail at it.
I'm not even sure if this is the most recent version. They still have this oddly specific sentence:
(b) Insemination of animals by the same species, bred for commercial purposes.
And still
V. For purposes of this section, "animal” means a nonhuman mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian, either dead or alive.
Obviously:
The Department of Corrections has no information on which to estimate the number individuals that may be found guilty of a class B felony under this bill.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-03-03 13:39:56
No surprise. NH will be the 41st state in the US outlawing it AFAIK.
How long until our community finally wakes up? Putting the blame solely on the "unfair, zoophobic(?)" society is BS, what we have seen the last few years is nothing more than the logical reaction towards a self obsessed scene, interwoven with illegal porn producers; an anthropocentric attitude , a misunderstood "right" to fuck animals. How long, folks?
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2016-03-03 14:50:46
While I agree "the community" has a share of blame, I suspect the standard reaction against minorities, the reaction that correlates with economic downturns, is a larger part of the problem. After all, it's not just us that are getting trouble - the European refugee crisis has resulted in people saying things along the lines of "mustard gas? How about zyklon B next time?"
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-03-04 05:42:46
I'm pretty sure they just find sex with animals disgusting, regardless of anything we say or do as a community.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-03-04 12:03:05
A little excerpt from the 2008´s petition by Silke Lautenschläger/Madeleine Martin that led to the ban of "zoophilia" in Germany:
"(...)...Banning interspecies sex has become a necessity because the reality of life has changed today. What once was something that has been done by a few single individuals, today has become a threat to society. Today, there are groups using the internet to meet up for animal sex, mutually praise and encourage sexual practices and literally "celebrate" the whole thing....(...) "
Yes, the first part of yur reply is right, "they" always were disgusted and repulsed by "us". But with widespread acceptance and usage of the internet today, our scene has mutated into an internet sex cult.
Mutual reassurance of almost anything possible, a sublime form of brainwashing, fading out any type of criticism and calling the criticisers "zoophobe", the pure display of an exceptional anthropo- and egocentrism, disconnection with reality as members spend all their spare time within the "cult" (forums),installing echo chambers constantly shaping the "us" versus "them" narrative ("we zoos are the real animal protectors" - "they are a bunch of hateful, irrational and biased arseholes").
There are many reasons to assume that our community lacks something very important: contact with reality.
We all choose to withdraw from reality for certain reasons; some of them obvious and legit like the general negative attitude towards us, some of them more hidden and illegit like withdrawal from LEGIT and JUSTIFIED criticism of our and our scene´s behavior.
We installed a parallel reality, one that´s almost entirely disconnected from the average people. We chose to turn inapproachable, unwilling to question our own points of view.
Dialogue is denied as everything that could possibly change some of our common beliefs and justifications is seen as an intolerant outward interference.
Anyone who is in this for more than just a few years should have noticed the slow, but inevitable changes our community has undergone. It all gradually turned more and more vile, more self obsessed. You can believe me that the zoos from ´95 were totally different from the "zoos" of today. Our ethics, our values, our beliefs...none of it has survived. Our own conduct has made it incredibly easy for our "enemies". Our public image has turned from "repulsive and weird, but harmless" to "a threat for animals and society". As I said before: every action will cause an appropriate counteraction.Physics 101. We need to stop building sand castles, we need to get rid of our self given position in our self built ivory tower of sexual freedom. We need to stop demanding what isn´t even granted "normal" folks.
Yes, we were always seen as unpleasant and repulsive. But society tolerated us, in a literal sense of the latin word "tolerare" ( to endure something you don´t like or agree with ). Then we screwed up by creating this illusion of "tolerance" most of us suffer from today. They really don´t want tolerance, they want immunity for everything, be it consumption,making and distributing animal porn, be it fencehopping or any other negative and abusive conduct.
We zoophiles were always there, in 2010, in 2000, in the nineties, in the eighties. Why are we targeted by authorities NOW and not earlier? Why is the anti zoophilia law wave collapsing over our heads NOW and not earlier? If you can answer those two questions correctly, you definitely are some steps closer to the actual truth, to the actual status quo of our community.
This admittedly enticing, self given status of the underdog, the sexual pariah, the misunderstood fighter for sexual freedom...all that we want to believe so badly we are: it´s nothing more than an illusion to cover up all our mistakes, all our misconceptions, all our own wrongs. It´s not society´s fault, it´s our own fault.
Resist the "zoosexual" brainwash, reestablish connection with your neurons...and with society.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-03-05 06:09:10
Your reasoning explains why we are being legislated now: Exposure. But exposure was bound to happen one way or another. Eventually, we'd get noticed. Media loves shit like us, regardless of sex meets, just for the shock value. And I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter how we behave, people still have trouble with gays, they are not going to love us without a fundamental world view change that has yet to happen and will not happen probably for some time. It's out of our hands, in short, so "cleaning up" our community of undesirables is a useless and possibly even counterproductive effort.
ursusem 1 point on 2016-03-05 07:18:48
I think we are being targeted now as opposed to earlier because now we have a group which is highly visible for the whole world to see (because now, as opposed to the nineties, virtually every human citizen of Earth lives online). I agree with you that the vast amount and large sums of animal pornography (which is supposedly catering to zoos) most likely tends to paint a negative picture of zoosexuals generally in the view of the general population. I agree that the actions of people interested in this form of sexuality are judged by the rest of society. But.... prior to the Internet, there never was a group of 'zoos' that society could point to and recognize as a clan all its own. Without a visible group of humans endorsing a certain set of beliefs it would appear to a given society that such beliefs are generally not held and therefore not an issue. Who cares about the random nobody who loves an animal too much. Get a sizable group of these 'random nobodies' together and it starts to get scary. I guess I'm not entirely sure what they are worried about exactly. Could it be spread of possible nasty infectious diseases? The break down of how humans relate to each other as we currently know it? The fact that it is just too different, too much change which is coming too fast? Is this thing just way too 'bizarre' for most people to be able to deal with at all? Maybe they worry that out of control perverts will cause harm to animals (and that is likely a reasonable concern). I feel like they are feeling the need to keep things status quo and zoophilia is definitely not status quo.
zoozooz 1 point on 2016-03-05 15:16:50
We zoophiles were always there, in 2010, in 2000, in the nineties, in the eighties. Why are we targeted by authorities NOW and not earlier?
I don't think it has much to do with the community. That was before my time, but if I google "site:groups.google.com zoophilia" and show results before 2000, I see exactly the same hostility I see today. E.g.
The Animals' Agenda , Volume 15, Number 6, pp 29-31 November/December 1995
The Animals' Agenda is a publication of The Animal Rights Network Inc, a non-profit organization.
BESTIALITY: THE UNMENTIONED ABUSE
...
Whatever the frequency of bestiality, it has its own newsgroup on the Internet
(alt.sex.bestiality), which provides chilling examples of the bestialist's
world. One person described having sex with stray dogs and then dropping them
off at animal shelters. Another reported episodes of bestiality that
occurred while dog sitting for a friend. A third described having *ex with his
half-Percheron horse.
...
I think the difference is that people are beginning to care more about animal rights and that they start listening to animal welfare/rights groups. For example veganism is growing and more accepted than ever.. I just think that unfortunately people mistake this crap for an actual animal rights issue because it's these animal rights groups propagating it who otherwise do (probably) decent work.
ursusem 1 point on 2016-03-05 20:44:32
Is the "Animals' Agenda publication of The Animal Rights Network" an example of this pre-2000s hate that you mention? Well, if you look at what they describe it seems like the people mentioned use animals for their own sexual gratification. They are not expressing romantic feelings for animals. Somebody was fucking a bunch of stray dogs and then "dropping them off" at animal shelters. One got sexual while he/she was supposed to be responsibly watching over a dog. One "described having sex with his horse"-- And? Just because someone has sex with his horse doesn't mean anything. The guy could be a terribly lewd and perverse individual and that's why he has sex with his horse. None of these scenarios seem to suggest that of a human having a loving, long term and committed relationship with a particular animal. .....So I feel I have yet to see pre-2000s anti-zoophilia sentiment being expressed.
you say "If you
happen to be one who either hears about someone 'at the office' who has
'come out', report them to your local humane society. The new 'in thing'
lately seems to be for these perverts to tell friends, family and people in
their lives that they are zoophiles. This is the same as the 'coming out of
gay people' "
Wer Sex mit Tieren propagiert, kaempft nicht bloss gegen individuelle
Moralvorstellungen, sondern gegen Kultur und Zivilisation, gegen
Moralitaet ueberhaupt, der zerstoert die muehsam erworbenen Dispositionen
des Menschen zu zivilen Zusammenleben. Ohne Schuldgefuehl - und dies
erweckt stets das Beduerfnis nach Strafe und induziert infolgedessen
die Taten, die bestraft werden koennen - geht das niemals ab. Denn
auch der Tabubruch bereitet schlechtes Gewissen. Und dieses macht
solchen Menschen an sich selber schon das Leben zur Hoelle, nicht erst
die Umgebung. Die Zerstoerung des Gewissens, der Abbau der
Ueber-Ich-Strukturen in einer komplexen Welt, wie die unsrige, laesst
Gewaltpotentialle aufkeimen, wie wir sie in manchen Exzessen bereits
oft in den Medien mitbekommen, insbesondere bei Menschen, die
zwischen virtueller Welt des Kinos, Fernsehen oder Internet und dem
realen Leben nicht mehr zu unterscheiden in der Lage sind.
Wow.
ursusem 1 point on 2016-03-06 04:00:49
Oh I see now.
SunTzuSaidThat 5 points on 2016-03-03 17:38:55
(a) Engaging in organizing, promoting, conducting, advertising, aiding, abetting, participating in as an observer, or performing any service in the furtherance of sexual contact or sexual penetration with an animal.
The law as written, mostly the parts "organizing, promoting,...advertising, aiding...any service in the furtherance of", is an infringement on NH residents' 1st Amendment rights. Make no mistake about this. The government cannot restrict how we meet up or organize nor can they restrict our speech about sexuality, both of which can be construed as offering a "service" in either promoting or advertising or aiding the practice of zoosexuality. If this bill targeted any less reviled group of people there would be an uproar.
This law, broadly interpreted, bans anyone "furthering sexual contact with an animal". That can include education or moral support, arguably. Even merely meeting up to discuss it or discussing the topic at all.
If this gets a serious challenge in court it might not stand up.
RelaxingOnTheBeach 1 point on 2016-03-04 13:47:25
Looks like this subreddit is now illegal in New Hampshire.
Edog91 1 point on 2016-03-04 05:06:18
Regardless of whatever law they make it means nothing unless they can In force it.
Some contend that bestiality is not a "violent" crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is bestiality abhorrent and cruel, but it also often results in serious injury to or the death of the animal.
Inability to differentiate between loving sex and violent sexual assault: Check
Inability to understand that seriously injuring to the point of death of animals is already animal cruelty and banned: Check
Moreover, there is a strong relationship to interpersonal violence, including sexual assault of people:
Failing to provide the sources so people can see they are distorting what they say: Check
Passage of HB 1547 would greatly enhance New Hampshire's ability to protect both animals and its communities—especially its children—from sexually violent offenders.
"Won't somebody please think of the children!": Check
/r/zoophilia archive
As expected. But what the hell is with the text of this bill? Here: http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=721&txtFormat=html
inconsistent spelling of bestiality
a comma that doesn't belong there
And I haven't even looked in detail at it.
I'm not even sure if this is the most recent version. They still have this oddly specific sentence:
And still
Obviously:
No surprise. NH will be the 41st state in the US outlawing it AFAIK.
How long until our community finally wakes up? Putting the blame solely on the "unfair, zoophobic(?)" society is BS, what we have seen the last few years is nothing more than the logical reaction towards a self obsessed scene, interwoven with illegal porn producers; an anthropocentric attitude , a misunderstood "right" to fuck animals. How long, folks?
While I agree "the community" has a share of blame, I suspect the standard reaction against minorities, the reaction that correlates with economic downturns, is a larger part of the problem. After all, it's not just us that are getting trouble - the European refugee crisis has resulted in people saying things along the lines of "mustard gas? How about zyklon B next time?"
I'm pretty sure they just find sex with animals disgusting, regardless of anything we say or do as a community.
A little excerpt from the 2008´s petition by Silke Lautenschläger/Madeleine Martin that led to the ban of "zoophilia" in Germany: "(...)...Banning interspecies sex has become a necessity because the reality of life has changed today. What once was something that has been done by a few single individuals, today has become a threat to society. Today, there are groups using the internet to meet up for animal sex, mutually praise and encourage sexual practices and literally "celebrate" the whole thing....(...) "
Yes, the first part of yur reply is right, "they" always were disgusted and repulsed by "us". But with widespread acceptance and usage of the internet today, our scene has mutated into an internet sex cult. Mutual reassurance of almost anything possible, a sublime form of brainwashing, fading out any type of criticism and calling the criticisers "zoophobe", the pure display of an exceptional anthropo- and egocentrism, disconnection with reality as members spend all their spare time within the "cult" (forums),installing echo chambers constantly shaping the "us" versus "them" narrative ("we zoos are the real animal protectors" - "they are a bunch of hateful, irrational and biased arseholes"). There are many reasons to assume that our community lacks something very important: contact with reality. We all choose to withdraw from reality for certain reasons; some of them obvious and legit like the general negative attitude towards us, some of them more hidden and illegit like withdrawal from LEGIT and JUSTIFIED criticism of our and our scene´s behavior. We installed a parallel reality, one that´s almost entirely disconnected from the average people. We chose to turn inapproachable, unwilling to question our own points of view. Dialogue is denied as everything that could possibly change some of our common beliefs and justifications is seen as an intolerant outward interference.
Anyone who is in this for more than just a few years should have noticed the slow, but inevitable changes our community has undergone. It all gradually turned more and more vile, more self obsessed. You can believe me that the zoos from ´95 were totally different from the "zoos" of today. Our ethics, our values, our beliefs...none of it has survived. Our own conduct has made it incredibly easy for our "enemies". Our public image has turned from "repulsive and weird, but harmless" to "a threat for animals and society". As I said before: every action will cause an appropriate counteraction.Physics 101. We need to stop building sand castles, we need to get rid of our self given position in our self built ivory tower of sexual freedom. We need to stop demanding what isn´t even granted "normal" folks.
Yes, we were always seen as unpleasant and repulsive. But society tolerated us, in a literal sense of the latin word "tolerare" ( to endure something you don´t like or agree with ). Then we screwed up by creating this illusion of "tolerance" most of us suffer from today. They really don´t want tolerance, they want immunity for everything, be it consumption,making and distributing animal porn, be it fencehopping or any other negative and abusive conduct.
We zoophiles were always there, in 2010, in 2000, in the nineties, in the eighties. Why are we targeted by authorities NOW and not earlier? Why is the anti zoophilia law wave collapsing over our heads NOW and not earlier? If you can answer those two questions correctly, you definitely are some steps closer to the actual truth, to the actual status quo of our community. This admittedly enticing, self given status of the underdog, the sexual pariah, the misunderstood fighter for sexual freedom...all that we want to believe so badly we are: it´s nothing more than an illusion to cover up all our mistakes, all our misconceptions, all our own wrongs. It´s not society´s fault, it´s our own fault. Resist the "zoosexual" brainwash, reestablish connection with your neurons...and with society.
Your reasoning explains why we are being legislated now: Exposure. But exposure was bound to happen one way or another. Eventually, we'd get noticed. Media loves shit like us, regardless of sex meets, just for the shock value. And I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter how we behave, people still have trouble with gays, they are not going to love us without a fundamental world view change that has yet to happen and will not happen probably for some time. It's out of our hands, in short, so "cleaning up" our community of undesirables is a useless and possibly even counterproductive effort.
I think we are being targeted now as opposed to earlier because now we have a group which is highly visible for the whole world to see (because now, as opposed to the nineties, virtually every human citizen of Earth lives online). I agree with you that the vast amount and large sums of animal pornography (which is supposedly catering to zoos) most likely tends to paint a negative picture of zoosexuals generally in the view of the general population. I agree that the actions of people interested in this form of sexuality are judged by the rest of society. But.... prior to the Internet, there never was a group of 'zoos' that society could point to and recognize as a clan all its own. Without a visible group of humans endorsing a certain set of beliefs it would appear to a given society that such beliefs are generally not held and therefore not an issue. Who cares about the random nobody who loves an animal too much. Get a sizable group of these 'random nobodies' together and it starts to get scary. I guess I'm not entirely sure what they are worried about exactly. Could it be spread of possible nasty infectious diseases? The break down of how humans relate to each other as we currently know it? The fact that it is just too different, too much change which is coming too fast? Is this thing just way too 'bizarre' for most people to be able to deal with at all? Maybe they worry that out of control perverts will cause harm to animals (and that is likely a reasonable concern). I feel like they are feeling the need to keep things status quo and zoophilia is definitely not status quo.
I don't think it has much to do with the community. That was before my time, but if I google "site:groups.google.com zoophilia" and show results before 2000, I see exactly the same hostility I see today. E.g.
I think the difference is that people are beginning to care more about animal rights and that they start listening to animal welfare/rights groups. For example veganism is growing and more accepted than ever.. I just think that unfortunately people mistake this crap for an actual animal rights issue because it's these animal rights groups propagating it who otherwise do (probably) decent work.
Is the "Animals' Agenda publication of The Animal Rights Network" an example of this pre-2000s hate that you mention? Well, if you look at what they describe it seems like the people mentioned use animals for their own sexual gratification. They are not expressing romantic feelings for animals. Somebody was fucking a bunch of stray dogs and then "dropping them off" at animal shelters. One got sexual while he/she was supposed to be responsibly watching over a dog. One "described having sex with his horse"-- And? Just because someone has sex with his horse doesn't mean anything. The guy could be a terribly lewd and perverse individual and that's why he has sex with his horse. None of these scenarios seem to suggest that of a human having a loving, long term and committed relationship with a particular animal. .....So I feel I have yet to see pre-2000s anti-zoophilia sentiment being expressed.
I mean that 20+ years ago the antis sounded exactly the same as now. (Obviously they're not talking only about these cases): https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.talk.bestiality/Kg8xHKL4EuE/HsERwOFyb-AJ
Edit: "Discussion" in alt.sci.sociology/-eJGVL58mhE: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.politics.animals/PyGQGQmW_ZM
How about
another edit. It's a bit off topic but that one is just too good (german) https://groups.google.com/d/msg/de.rec.tiere.misc/llgbf8Fea-I/codSzLBTktUJ
Wow.
Oh I see now.
The law as written, mostly the parts "organizing, promoting,...advertising, aiding...any service in the furtherance of", is an infringement on NH residents' 1st Amendment rights. Make no mistake about this. The government cannot restrict how we meet up or organize nor can they restrict our speech about sexuality, both of which can be construed as offering a "service" in either promoting or advertising or aiding the practice of zoosexuality. If this bill targeted any less reviled group of people there would be an uproar.
This law, broadly interpreted, bans anyone "furthering sexual contact with an animal". That can include education or moral support, arguably. Even merely meeting up to discuss it or discussing the topic at all.
If this gets a serious challenge in court it might not stand up.
Looks like this subreddit is now illegal in New Hampshire.
Regardless of whatever law they make it means nothing unless they can In force it.
The "animal welfare institute" wants YOUR support for this bill: https://awionline.org/action-ealerts/support-bill-strengthen-nh-cruelty-law
Usual bullshit:
Inability to differentiate between loving sex and violent sexual assault: Check
Inability to understand that seriously injuring to the point of death of animals is already animal cruelty and banned: Check