This can hardly be called "research". That's stating a hypothesis. A quote:
The link between the commission of bestiality in childhood and juvenile offending has also been demonstrated. In their study of 381 juvenile offenders, Fleming et al (2002)
No. This study says it can not establish that this link exists in general. It only described the link in the special case of youth offenders. Here is a quote from this study:
It is difficult to assess “normality” in a study where all 381 participants were adjudicated juvenile offenders living in state facilities.
[…]
The findings of the current study suggest that this link might be extended to include sex with animals, at least among some populations. The current study is limited in making this as an absolute generalization, because bestiality among populations other than male juvenile offenders was not examined. Juvenile offenders are, by definition, adjudicated for aggressive and violent offenses. It is possible that among other populations (single women and their pets), sex acts with animals might be performed out of love, the need for consolation, or other motivations. In these and other populations, there might not be any link whatsoever to offenses against humans. It is difficult to understand how the humans in these situations might view their own behaviors in terms of “mutual consent,” or how they consider the pain, if any, to the animal participant, but this would be a worthwhile topic for future study.
The authors themselves speculate about the nonexistence of this link in the populations that they have explicitely not studied! Claiming that this study establishes a "link between bestiality and juvenile offending" is basically the same as quotemining.
There is limited academic or scientific research available, and virtually no empirical data on bestiality. Many studies are pseudoscientific or the findings cannot be generalized. Although some current research is underway, the most often cited research is forty to fifty years old.
Most notably I can not find anything where she examined whether there might be cases where sex between humans nonhumans do no harm.
“The trend is going toward education, but I'm a one-woman show,” Edwards said.
Now, Edwards and Hoffman work together in training law enforcement nationwide in how to investigate bestiality as a crime
So she claims she is the only one (literally) who is qualified to talk on the topic and people are just letting her "train" law enforcement? So far I haven't actually seen a justification why bestiality needs to be unconditionally investigated as a crime anyway, except for these hypothesized links between bestiality and sexual offenses against people and children. I mean, these links are far from proven to exist in general...
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2016-05-09 20:25:05
“There are no laws recognizing emotional harm for animals"
Yeah especially farm animals who are stuffed in cages and shot before being eaten.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-05-09 17:44:53
yawn...boy, you waste too much time on shit like this.
It´s basically the same old "researcher uses wrong source of data, arranges it to prove prejudices already accepted as "the truth" and carved in stone, gets lots of attention, declares him-/herself an expert" scenario...nothing new under the sun, if you ask me.
Still, the fundamental problems aren´t adressed..neither from this bogus researcher, nor from you who should already know better. Until we finally divide our "interest group" into bestialists and genuine zoos once and for all, society will continue to mistake anyone having sex with an animal as "one of those zoophiles" ,the data gathered and used for such studies will stay flawed and basically irrelevant.
We face the same problems here as the German cannabis users face: no valid data can be used as it is nearly impossible to retrieve, studies are made based on corrupt data , hinting at the wrong conclusions, cannabis won´t be legalized as studies seem to imply negative effects...new studies are made based onto data gathered from those who came in contact with the law using cannabis...rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
Even Beetz´and Miletskis´ studies are flawed because anything that those who emailed their stories to those two researchers isn´t more than self biased folklore. Even the worst animal abuser could have easily told "how gentle he is with the animals" and "how non abusive all of this is". What we really need is validated data that´s been collected under the supervision of researchers.That basically means a stranger has to pay you and your animal a visit, observing everything (even "that" as well), drawing independent conclusions instead of just believing in "zoo folklore". Only a few of us will be comfortable with an arrangement like this and a spectator watching the intercourse (at least, I hope so...), so it´s pretty sure to say that obtaining an exonerating study based on actual observations that is reliable and valid won´t happen too soon.
By the way: I hope you know that your continued attacks on studies like this can easily be read as vigorously defending bestiality, even in it´s darkest shades. Demanding a general legality will most definitely put across the totally wrong message here.
Another thing you miss out on completely: zoophilia is a crime that´s very hard to prove unless you actively participate in creating evidence that can be used in court. Be it pictures, porn, hooking up with "another zoo" on craigslist and similar bullshit platforms known to be frequently scanned by authorities...it´s always the "zoo" who contributes a big chunk to his own exposure and persecution.
The only other way to get your ass in serious trouble without your participation would be collecting DNA samples from your animals shortly after intercourse, what you can avoid by defending your privacy at all costs. Tl;dr: authorities will be hunting ghosts if you stay smart. All research, all laws, all of the pressure inflicted upon us is only effective on those who neglect basic reason and caution.
YOu can complain about the obvious wrongs and fallacies of this study as long as you want, but you won´t trigger any revolution with your constant nagging and complaining. Things won´t change until we as a community change and separate from the bad "ambassadors" of our orientation.
To offer a solution to the problem, I can only reiterate my porposal of some kind of "licensed zoophilia" where you are allowed to have a relationship with an animal, but are under the state´s/authority´s supervision; with unschedueled visits from vets to ensure the animal´s wellbeing and psychological examinations of the alleged zoophile to exclude the fake forms of this orientation, such as substitute zoophila (can´t get a human), the disturbingly common fucks-anything-that-walks mentality and fake ass bestiality/uses-animal-for-live-sex-toy individuals.
As a favorable side effect, my proposal would also generate more reliable and valid data of zoophilia.
We basically suffer from one simple fact: unless we finally can prove our claim of being harmless or even beneficial to our animal, we won´t get anywhere. Such a solid proof can only be obtained by genuine research on an actual zoophile. If, and only if the common belief of zoophilia being undeniably harmful to the animal is smashed by more and more evidence of the opposite, we will experience a true change. Without it, such studies like the one you criticized above will be the predominant flavor and all your posts and (partially justified) complaints won´t change anything about it.
zoozooz 2 points on 2016-05-09 20:22:03
Still, the fundamental problems aren´t adressed..neither from this bogus researcher, nor from you who should already know better. Until we finally divide our "interest group" into bestialists and genuine zoos once and for all, society will continue to mistake anyone having sex with an animal as "one of those zoophiles" ,the data gathered and used for such studies will stay flawed and basically irrelevant.
It shouldn't matter who we embrace or exclude. Good science should automatically arrive at the correct conclusion.
By the way: I hope you know that your continued attacks on studies like this can easily be read as vigorously defending bestiality, even in it´s darkest shades. Demanding a general legality will most definitely put across the totally wrong message here.
Well, the article is not a study, it's a collection of statements of different people and I don't only attack it, for example I agree with one of the points:
“There are no laws recognizing emotional harm for animals,” Smith-Blackmore said.
Then why don't you try the laws to recognize emotional harm for animals instead of trying to get bestiality banned?
Just not with the way they are going about it.
I guess I did rant too much again, but I really wanted to ask the question about Jenny Edwards - She's not a nobody: Her "research" is being taught to law enforcement, nationwide. But has her research been peer reviewed in any meaningful way? Do real researchers take it seriously? Or is there a void where no researchers are interested in the topic apart from those who are interested in bestiality as a crime?
some kind of "licensed zoophilia" where you are allowed to have a relationship with an animal, but are under the state´s/authority´s supervision
And I will never agree to that. You know that all over the world zoophiles are criminalized for no particular reason. You just need a small shift of voters to conservative/christian political parties and next thing you know all registered zoophiles get their animals taken away to "protect" them. Hey, what if for some freak reason the AFD isn't going to implode, but takes the majority? What if in the end we get a really right wing government? Are you prepared to be committed into a psychiatric institution to get "treated"?
Why would you trust people and the government so much to create a registry of known sexual deviants? Because you had some good experiences with the people in your vicinity? Good luck giving power over your personal live to a random "state inspector". Who is guaranteeing that your inspector will not be a sympathizer of organizations like Ärzte Gegen Zoophilie? After all, the Bundesverband Praktizierender Tierärzte supported the supposed "ban". Sure, you can probably fight it in court, but are you prepared for that shit show, however long it would last? That wouldnb't happen? Just look towards america. Currently there are more state employees losing their jobs than you'd think because they intentionally ignore their supreme court rulings in regards to LGBT rights. In my view putting all zoophiles under Generalverdacht like that is a massive infringement on civil rights and I'll always be opposed.
We basically suffer from one simple fact: unless we finally can prove our claim of being harmless
I say, we shouldn't have to and that it's all on the people who want to criminalize zoophiles to provide evidence for a need to do so, but yes, this proof would always be good to have.
Such a solid proof can only be obtained by genuine research on an actual zoophile.
Only a few of us will be comfortable with an arrangement like this and a spectator watching the intercourse (at least, I hope so...)
If I was living together with a dog, if the researcher was guaranteed to be impartial and it was guaranteed not to take too much time out of my day I would do it. But I don't get the feeling you'd want me to represent you. :)
Anyway, from what I heard from the ZETA Verein, their offers to researchers to have their animals examined have actually been declined for some reason, so I don't suppose it's happening anytime soon.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-05-10 06:07:33
So handing out licenses is putting people under "Generalverdacht"? Drivers licenses make you a potential law breaker? Really? Only because you can be held accountable for your doings when you fuck up? I really can´t get my head around your way of thinking here.
And: what solution do you have to offer? I mean...anything besides the "legalize it " general absolution you like to insist on?
I see it that way: we have a conflict of two legit demands here. the demand of us zoos to be able and allowed to love the way it feels natural to us, but also the state´s legit demand to protect animals from any unnecessary harm inflicted on them. The only feasible way to solve this conflict is searching for something that includes both sides here. A general illegalisation isn´t gonna work, a general legalisation won´t work either. In both of those scenarios, someone´s interest will always be neglected. Your solution of general allowance will open doors for animal abuse...and don´t you forget that exactly this kind of unrestrained "freedom" is what brought us to the point of introducing new laws. Don´t deny that there are vast archives of porn that is clearly abusive to animals out there and naturally forms a certain public image of our group; exactly this is what made the "Ausschuss" rethink things and allowed the new law to pass after it has been rejected several times. I happen to know that what shifted Goldmann and his colleagues from rejection to passing our new law was showing them beastforum and the vast sites hosting animal pornography, reassuring the claims of the antis that "zoophilia" has turned from a relatively neglectable practice of only a few to an epidemic with organized crime structures behind it. The fact that our orientation has turned into a moneymaker, a "new" game within the fetish sector, a public nuisance.
You surely can continue pointing at the inconsistencies in studies, but as long as you can´t offer any REASONABLE solution that´s not opening doors for animal abuse, you truly come across as an "insulted liver sausage" (beleidigte Leberwurst).
In my proposal, there surely are some things that need further elaboration...some problems, like the one you mentioned regarding prejudiced vets, certainly do exist. But if we deny anything except total "freedom", nothing will progress anyway. By the way: those few vets organized against "zoophilia" surely have an obvoius "conflict of interest" and would disqualify for a simulaneous membership in their anti group and as an expert evaluating actual zoophile relationships. My own experiences with vets are mostly positive although I dare to say they ALL had suspicions about my relationship with my mare. One vet even defended me from accusations by saying that she never has seen another human-horse relationship so intimate, close and based on total trust. I personally know roughly 20 vets, no one ever gave me problems.
I really have the notion that it´s those who don´t have any real experience either with leading a zoo life or having to deal with vets who exaggerate tremenduously, who focus on an alleged general hostility towards zoophiles. Maybe I´m just an extremely lucky guy, but I never had to face much animosity; the amount of never-been-active zoos complaining about something they don´t know shit about is too damn high. ;)
No, seriously, it´s similar to the common misconception of being discriminated against in the LGBT community. I´m not saying discrimination doesn´t exist, but in my opinion, it´s totally exaggerated and not based on actual facts. I do undertand that living in an environment you deem hostile is stressful sometimes, but you´ll have to ask yourselves if your perception isn´t somehow biased and you´re basically running from ghosts, being scared of things that aren´t real when examined closely.I do understand that it´s a damn comfortable thing to claim the position of the pariah, the scapegoat, the underdog...but when I recall my life so far, I never felt being discriminated or opressed by my non zoo environment.
Maybe I´m right when I say that it´s not your orientation that determines the reactions towards you, but your basic character, the display of true love that turns zoophilia into something at least tolerable instead of something you need to wipe off the face of the earth.
You asked me why I would trust the gov´mnt to have a registry of "zoophiles"...well, you should know that there is a possibility of anonymized groups with identifying data only available to the scientists conducting the study. This is a common procedure for researchers researching illegal activities and I wonder why you don´t know that. Participating in such a study would protect the subject of research from punishment like it protects those participating in a study on medical marijuana..anonymized, but identifiable by the researchers.
Honestly, you seem to be cherrypicking on all possible negatives instead of trying to find a solution besides your dominant "just make it legal" attitude. As if we are in any position to be so damn picky...this is what I call arrogance, mate.You want a solution that totally fits your demands, in your way, with you making the rules.Well, that´s NOT gonna happen...wake up.
I also think that you´re exaggerating on political shifts towards the right wing...please tell me, do you expect homosexuality to return to an illegal status because the AfD might take over the power? It would be quite ironic if the LGBT community returns to the "illegal" status, considering the fact that they aren´t very supportive to us...maybe they´ll find themselves in a similar position as us very soon when your scenario of a political shift becomes true.
zoozooz 1 point on 2016-05-10 08:38:12
Your solution of general allowance will open doors for animal abuse...
Which is still illegal.
and don´t you forget that exactly this kind of unrestrained "freedom" is what brought us to the point of introducing new laws. Don´t deny that there are vast archives of porn that is clearly abusive to animals out there
I'm not arguing for unrestricted freedom. It should be restricted where animals are harmed. Producing porn by abusing animals is at least borderline illegal and even if it is not in some countries, it should be.
Still, I don't think a law in germany will change much in this situation, because I don't think much of this is filmed in germany...
exactly this is what made the "Ausschuss" rethink things and allowed the new law to pass after it has been rejected several times
Still, the danish animal ethics council managed to form a differentiated opinion:
The Council’s members find that there may be a need for initiatives which ban or in other ways prevent sexual relations with animals happening under organised or commercial auspices such as sex shows, leasing, brothel operation or production of pornography. The Council’s members have the view that there is an added risk of the animals’ welfare being neglected when there are financial interests involved, and think furthermore that use of animals in this way reflects a lack of respect to the animals’ integrity. Even though such activities at present time probably aren’t widespread, the Council puts forward the recommendation with reference to trying to prevent future activities.
Now was that so hard? Would it really have been impossible for the Ausschuss in Germany to come to a similar differentiated opinion?
but as long as you can´t offer any REASONABLE solution that´s not opening doors for animal abuse,
Well, my opinion happens to be that it's only reasonable to reject a surveillance or police state that, and that you should be able to do whatever you want to do without your government's explicit approval unless you infringe on the rights of others, human or nonhuman. Let's ban drinking alcohol, because it opens the door for abusers to rape drunken people?
Drivers licenses make you a potential law breaker?
Well, driving in public where other people are without proper training is not possible to do safely, no matter your intentions, and only that is illegal without a driver's license. That's like operating an uncontrolled weapon.
If you want to drive without a driver's license you can safely and legally do that on your own private grounds, when the necessary precautions to prevent random strangers to wander into your path are met.
So it's a bit different.
There is a simple way for imposing mandatory physical and mental health checks for pets that I would agree with: If every pet owner had to do it. Maybe every 6 months or so. After all, it's a valid concern that abused animals can't go to the police on their own. The vets would be trained in finding signs of abuse, sexual and nonsexual, but you shouldn't have to disclose that you're a zoo, so they're not biased.
You are right, I do not know how many "good" or "bad" vets there are. As far as I know there are no statistics. Maybe someone should do a survey. I only know what I can read online:
„Aber auch das von der Bundesregierung angestrebte bußgeldbewehrte Verbot zoophiler Handlungen sollte unbedingt im Gesetz verankert werden“, kommentiert der bpt-Präsident den Entwurf weiter. Der sexuelle Missbrauch von Tieren ist aus tierärztlicher Sicht ein wichtiges, tierschutzrelevantes Thema. Im Verbund mit renommierten Wissenschaftlern hat der bpt ein eindeutiges Verbot gefordert
And in their "about us" section they say:
Der bpt ist die führende und unabhängige berufsständische Interessenvertretung der praktizierenden Tierärzte
Wir sind das Sprachrohr für eine positive gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung der Tierärzte
(No, I have done no research on how influental and big they really are.)
well, you should know that there is a possibility of anonymized groups with identifying data only available to the scientists conducting the study.
Well, just now you compared it with a driver's license.
But still, who appoints the researchers? After all,
Jenny Edwards, a criminologist and independent researcher who has been studying animal sexual abuse for 10 years.
Edwards developed the program based on her studies of the crime and its psychology, which she said is the only current information any researcher has gathered. Part of the problem is a gap in academic research, she said.
Thus my question, how serious her research is really taken in scientific circles.
please tell me, do you expect homosexuality to return to an illegal status because the AfD might take over the power?
No. But sex with animals? Even with the so called "center" of CDU I can see that happening any day. Gay people are historically recognized as being victims of discrimination in the public record. Zoophiles? Not so much.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-05-10 11:42:24
Oh boy...you´re really one of those blessed with total ignorance and an unhealthy antipathy of rethinking things from another point of view, aren´t you?
Yes, animal abuse would still be legal when all bestial acts are legalised, but you´re totally missing out on the fact that the new law was introduced by the government to actually have something in hands to persecute something that is almost impossible to persecute when only the animal welfare laws apply. You could not interfere with a person who is constantly abusing an animal of his own and withdraws it from any further examination when physically injured. I told you before that even the most hard core conservative knows how inapplicable the anti "zoophilia" law actually is on those who abstain from handing out any visible sign.
The law primarily was meant to repel a certain percentage that I refer to as "wanna-try-out" bestialists. It clearly transports a message to all of those only in it for the thrill and taboo; it also makes it harder for amateur animal pornographers to suck out of allegations easily by stating the films made are only for "private purposes" and not intended to be published.
The law mostly aims at the growing commercialisation of zoophilia and it equally raises attention for this kind of conduct in vets and everyday folks alike. What once was unthinkable when someone walks by you with a dog suffering from a ripped perineum is now recognized as possible animal abuse ad hoc.
I´m not defending outlawing zoophilia, but I also see that total "freedom" given to a scene with a significant high percentage of outright animal abusers only serves the needs of the abusers, demanding a return to this kind of status is just silly and additionally not very zooish. Something had to be done about the growing animal porn, the abuse, the tendency to meet with other "zoos" to have a collective go at animals. I really don´t blame the government for that law although it affects me equally as it is not very specific, but it was foreseeable it would be that way as you really can´t demand a more diversified view at us from anyone outside our community if even the community is unable to draw a clear line between non abusive and abusive behavior. Some defend animal porn, others like me wanna see it banned. Some advocate fencehopping, saying it´s not so bad, others will contradict.
You keep posting the Danish council´s views. Good for you. But honestly irrelevant. That´s one, only ONE opinion among thousands with another, more rejecting overtone. You´re fishing for things that support your views, that´s legit. But, as you may have recognized, the Danish council does not give any kind of solution to the problematic behavior they have spoken out on. They don´t have any solution for that, too. The don´t give an alternative.
As long as there is no real and practical way to separate us from folks doing all that stuff by law, a full ban on interspecies sex is only logical. Since we are such a small minority, nobody wastes his precious time on working out exact rules and laws here.Especially with all the other shitty stuff going on out there, demanding more attention than a bunch of "animal lovers".
One thing definitely is clear: we don´t share the same approach on the issue of legal zoophilia. Whereas you seem to place the emphasis on human freedom and would tolerate/ accept animal casualities that naturally will occur when total legalisation is granted, my approach places the emphasis on the animal´s wellbeing. If only one animal suffers from "free zoophilia", it is enough for me to tolerate/accept being criminalized by authorities and shifts my freedom to live the relationships I consider natural from a legal right to something I have to earn by gaining the people´s trust and silence. We won´t agree, I guess...but your approach has been tried out by ZETA and associates for so long now and has had no effect so far. How about not doing the same experiment with the same frame conditions over and over again, asking why the result remains the same?
By the way: you misunderstood my drivers license analogy: to get one, you have to demand it from the state, you have to prove worthy of the trust (by examinations and testing your knowledge) that´s been put in you to drive around with a weapon on wheels.You can get stripped of it when you fuck up big time. You can be held accountable for your mistakes. In one word: regulation. Your zoo life would be regulated in a way like your life as a car driver is regulated.
Your "ban alcohol" analogy misses the point. Alcohol can be used without a car, but you can´t "zoo" without an animal.
P.S.: The bpt is exactly such a legit representative of all German vets like ZETA is a legit represenative of all German zoos. ;)
ursusem 1 point on 2016-05-11 05:20:33
Are there really a lot of individuals who blatantly abuse animals sexually within this "orientation" and claim to be completely non-abusive, as you seem to imply there are?!? I think it's possible I may not have too much experience with the overall community. I don't use animal porn and was banned from BeastForum the same day that I created an account there many years ago. Maybe there is a lot that I don't know...
Why would anyone want to be abusive towards animals in this way? Are they just maniacally horny and out of control of themselves or....? Forgive my ignorance if that's what I am.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-05-11 07:46:04
Since having sex with animals became more widespread around the year 2000, mainly based on the increase of freely available AP, our once tiny group has been invaded by masses of folks with highly doubtable motives. Our orientation became some sorta new playground for fetishists and taboo breakers. Zoophilia was perceived as a "new" and thrilling deviancy, one that still had the flair of dangerous and out-of-bounds experience. Today, "zoophilia" has turned into something that has become a tiny, but essential part of various other sexual subcultures. "Zoophilia" can be found as another form of s/m play (" master told me to get fucked by dog..."), and as a means of degradation ("filthy dogwhore"),for example.
It is used as a moneymaker (beastforum and other sites distributing porn for cash) and to spice up human relationships ("threeway with doggy"). I also have witnessed a special form of "dick upgrading" in certain gays and women, with the size of the penis being the main feature to turn towards animals. Sometimes, I jokingly say that many "zoos" would quit immediately on animal stuff if there would be an overnight shapeshift of all animal cocks into average sized human ones. 90% of gay zoo and 50% of hetero zoo would be over one minute after the shapeshifting. ;) (Prepare for code red, DEFCON 1 ;) )
Now, let´s take a look at the circulating animal porn. If beastforum is good for one thing, then it´s the fact BF serves as a good qource of actual insights in the ways "zoos" have sex with animals. It is very representative of what really is going on out there in our name. Although I´m not an avid watcher and the number of films I´ve seen is pretty low, I noticed more or less abusive tendencies in almost all of them. Until today, I could not point out a single flic where a real, non staged form of actual affection for the animal is displayed, but could point out lots of abusive practices the persons involved frequently use. Be it tieing up and/or cornering a mare to have intercourse, be it not recognizing clear signs of rejection and/or ignoring them unintentionally (lack of knowledge) or even purposedly; the high number of such videos leads to a very disturbing conclusion if you extrapolate percentages and apply them to our global community. Now you could object and say that this is porn, not reality. But due to the fact that there is such a huge amount out there labeled "amateur" in addition with the fact that even self proclaimed "zoos" who insist on being a zoo with morals often positively comment on these dubious videos in BF, I dare to say that this actually IS how "we" are. The general picture I get is that all of our self given morals and rules are ignored a) out of lack of knowledge and interest ("What? Learn riding? Me just wants fuck horsie..."), b) the tendency to reject applying scepticism to one´s own views (" ... what? Abuse? Nooo, the mare just steps aside to intensify stimulation, dude..." , "...she only stomps he front leg to show how much she enjoys it...") and c) an overall tendency to deny an underlying anthropocentric and very selfish way of thinking. In the end, the human is the one who decides when ,where and how the "action" takes place.
It´s a gim but true fact groups like the one in here are a marginalized minority; in here and in other more zooish forums, there are seldom more than 30 - 50 active members, whereas BF has a whopping 1,5 mil. Even if you subtract all the obvious dead and duplicate accounts, I still estimate the real figure being around half a mil.
Abusive conduct is more common than non abusive conduct, that´s for sure when you agree on the term "zoophilia" being used as a synonym for "fucks animals". Negative things are not an exception, but "normal" within our special interest group. I still think that Dr. Silke Lautenschläger summed it up best when she said that zoophilia once was a relatively unproblematic sexual conduct only a few people engaged in, but with the commercialisation of the internet, it mutated into something more vile and atrocious, with more and more people indulging into these practices, a formation of some kind of an "internet cult" of animal fucking with organized crime-like structures operating in the background.
This perfectly matches my observations and also finds it´s analogy in the "normal" porn changes towards a harder, more brutal and increasingly less funny form. Just show some 70´s porn to a porn user of today and he´ll just ask you "WTF? How is THAT sexy?"
The whole sex thing shifted from mild to wild, from friendly to abusive, from entertaining to sickening by the total commercialisation of sexuality we face nowadays.
Having no "bucket list" and objecting to some forms of aberrative sexuality, calling out the obvious psychological implications that lead to that aberration most likely will grant you the status of a "prude","intolerant asshole", etc...
But let´s return to the topic to summarize it:
We, the ones who actually have earned the right to use the z-word by our actions, are a small minority and our morals and rules are deemed irrelevant by the vast majority of "animal sex afficionados". The public image has formed around the visible evidence available out there (a.k.a. porn) and it shows that abusive actions are quite common among "zoophiles"."Our" interest in animals very often orbits around the sex part, silly myths like "when a mare pees, she´s having an orgasm" and "winking shows enjoyment" included.
Often, underlying ego- and anthropocentric attitudes can be identified by a closer look and questioning the "zoo". Bad representation like "The Horseman" from Mark Matthews that is mistaken by many as a "zoo bible", groups like ZETA also unintentionally or purposedly drawing a very unfavorable picture of zoophilia by shying away from clear statements (fencehopping, possible abuse in animal porn production,etc.) and the fact that only a few chosen zoos are capable to withstand witty questions aimed to unveil all of those "animal-as-a-live-sex-toy, taboo-breaking,fetishism, usage of animals as a means of degradation in sado-maschistic play " attitudes only leads to one conclusion:
Zoophilia nowadays is much more abusive than we all like to admit. It´s NOT only a small percentage of folks that abuse, it´s the majority. One of the main reasons why all our efforts to gain tolerance are doomed to fail is the huge discrepancies that show between our zoophile sermon and reality. Another one is the lack of a term that isn´t misused as a label for anyone having sex with animals.Replies on sites hosting animal porn, additionally allowing you to comment, very seldom point out the obvious abuse, although many of us who have no problem watching porn could do something about it, but often don´t even notice the abusiveness out of sheer lack of proper knowledge, heavily contradicting their self claimed status of "animal experts". Is it indifference? Or malicious intent?
Or is it selfishness ("Oh, noooes...my precious poooorn!") paired with the usual rosey-tinted glasses that let you go blind for the obvious?
Regarding your last paragraph: Yes, there are many out there placing their own sexual gratification before anything else. They even call themselves "zoophiles" without seeing the contradiction of what they preach and what they practice. Even the old Romans had a proverb for this: * penis erectus non compos mentis * ( An erect dick has no conscience ). This still holds lots of truth, even today.
If "zoophilia" is, like the public, many scientists and even zoos themselves assume, the description for "having sex with animals" with no real relevance of the entire emotional part, then saying that "abuse is the rule in zoophilia" is ultimately right and many of the prejudices that are held against us do indeed hold some truth about "us" zoophiles.
zoozooz 1 point on 2016-05-11 10:21:27
Zoophilia nowadays is much more abusive than we all like to admit. It´s NOT only a small percentage of folks that abuse, it´s the majority.
Eh, I'm not convinced. You're still only judging the part you can see on the internet. I also doubt that there are 500.000 members of beastforum who could be called "active" (i.e. actually participate in the community instead of doing a couple of one-off posts and then never to be seen again). I'd be surprised if there are 1000.
And I doubt that
the human is the one who decides when ,where and how the "action" takes place
is a "new" widespread attitude. Raising animals with the intent to slaughter them and eat their flesh has been widespread for a really long time and to be able to do that, you have to inherently view animals as a commodity as opposed to equal partners and my hypothesis would be that feeling entitled to "use" animals for sex whenever and however the human wants to is born from this mindset more than anything else. Of course, still only a hypothesis. But if the estimated numbers are right, there is a huge chunk of zoophiles not found in any online zoo community, so we wouldn't really know.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-05-11 11:59:21
You aren´t very familiar with BF, right? Almost every time of the day, nearly 1000 accounts are registered as "active within the last hour". Many are lurkers, others bingedownload porn and never post. Believe me, BF has around half a million of active users, but only around 200 frequently posting in the various threads. Remember that the site`s first and foremost purpose is animal porn distribution, not serving as a meeting point for bestialists/zoos of all couleurs.
I never said that referring to animals as something inferior that has to obey to the human´s likings is new, I said that the masses of non zoo people invading our territory after 2000 brought this common normal people´s attitude into our community. Before the hype, you couldn´t last another second within the community if you displayed such an attitude; you ass would have been kicked twice around the world by all of us. Having that attitude as something so common in our community, THAT is what is new compared to the old zoo community. The level of doggish acceptance, the zoos not expelling those folks because of "tolerance", that´s what is new.
"There is a huge chunk of zoophiles not found in the nline community"....well, no. Sure, it´s dependent on the generation, anyone older than me (50+) may not be present online. But this is only one, maybe two generations of old people. Today, anyone who has access to a computer enganges in online communities. Those few zoos who openly reject to go online do keep their distance mostly for the reason that THEIR way of thinking isn´t represented by any zoo community out there (Please note that almost any form of "zoophilia" has its "fandom and online community, only mine has not...honi soit qui mal y pense ;) ). Mostly , they don´t go online for the same reasons no true zoo can be part of the Beastforum for long. I really doubt your conclusion; claiming that there is a huge chunk of zoos not visible, but surely they must be different from the usual picture the visible "zoos" give is basically "religion". I prefer making sense out of real data, not illusionary, quasi-religious assumptions.
zoozooz 1 point on 2016-05-11 12:47:01
Many are lurkers, others bingedownload porn and never post.
Well, that's exactly it. You don't really know anything about them. After having a quick look, the section "Male Home-made Bestiality Pictures and Movies" has 241 pages, "Female Home-made Bestiality Pictures and Movies" has 149.
Then the section "Beastiality Stories" has 304 pages, "Home-made Artwork" has 81 and "Fantasies" has 221.
Just saying...
But this is only one, maybe two generations of old people. Today, anyone who has access to a computer enganges in online communities.
Zoo communities, not any community. Many years ago I looked into communities and briefly looked into tlover info, but that wasn't really interesting to me, then I was a bit in blackwolf's forum where I actually got to know someone, but I lost interest there too, so for several years after that I just didn't care about any online zoo communities...
Before the hype, you couldn´t last another second within the community if you displayed such an attitude; you ass would have been kicked twice around the world by all of us.
Well, I don't care. I have little interest in most zoo communities anyway, much less the elitist ones. I was over at knotty.me for a while, but I just don't feel like going there anymore. I'm not sure if I'm going to keep coming here either.
claiming that there is a huge chunk of zoos not visible, but surely they must be different from the usual picture the visible "zoos" give is basically "religion"
No, I'm saying we don't actually know.
I prefer making sense out of real data
Which we don't have.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-05-11 13:17:54
You´re basically saying here that you never fully engaged in online zoo communities, have no real idea and thus you feel entitled to draw conclusions totally opposed to those from a guy that has been active in the communities for decades. Wow!
"Which we don´t have"...no, wrong! YOU seem to lack data, YOU don´t know. That´s a difference.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-05-11 12:49:05
You have no idea about Beastforum, right? At any given time of the day, there are roughly around 1000 members registered as "active within the last hour". Many are lurkers, others binge download porn. Believe me, my estimation of half a mil is accurate.
I was not saying that the "humans = masters, animals = slaves" attitude is new, I was trying to say that this attitude being accepted within our community so widely was new. Before the hype of 2000, displaying such behavior and attitude would´ve got you free ass kicking from every zoo and an extended travel around the earth for your animal abusive ass...twice!
Well, I know that you´re studying. When reading your last two sentences above, you surely study nothing scientific, am I right?
When you have lots of visible samples that lead to an unfavorable conclusion, is it scientifically correct to claim that "there are others out there not visible and whom I know absolutely nothing about? But they surely don´t match the others who are visible and whom we know lots about. You´re not making up facts that better fit into your weltbild in science when the findings oppose it. Please remember the fact that I´m in this for a little longer than yesterday; I am active in the online community since Lintilla and Sleepy.I´ve seen many come and go, supporting my notion that "zoophilia" for many is but a temporary phase; they participate as long as it lasts, but vanish into oblivion once they got rid of it.I´ve seen the paradigm shift of 2000, from genuine zoophilia to porn based sexual adventurous behavior neglecting any respect for the animals with my own eyes. Over time I met lots of zoos and "zoos", the latter had become the predominant ones after 2000. I´m not making up these things, mate. Ask any veteran, he´ll tell you the same. I understand how hard it must be for you to face the hard facts contradicting your own views of an "all-good-zoos" community, but that´s long gone, friend. The paradigm shift was what ignited the process that now is turning zoophiia illegal worldwide. If you still can´t believe my words, then please explain why it is NOW that we are outlawed although our community was equally, if not more visible back in the nineties. Why now and not back then?
Maybe becuse back then, there were lots of sites with explanations and texts regarding zoophilia and little sites featuring porn,while today it just turned around.... maybe??
You can continue to fish for pleasant data that fits your views, even in thin air like you did above. But don´t fool yourself, don´t be dumb. If something smells like shit, tastes like shit and looks like shit, it very likely IS shit. Don´t try to sell me shit and say it´s pizza, dude. And don´t claim that there are "invisible" pizza spices you can´t smell,see and taste because they´re not online...;)
zoozooz 1 point on 2016-05-11 13:20:44
Before the hype of 2000, displaying such behavior and attitude would´ve got you free ass kicking from every zoo and an extended travel around the earth for your animal abusive ass...twice!
I'm not saying I accept that behavior, I'm saying I think you may overstate the extent and that I think the problem may often not come from an attitude of "I want to abuse animals" but from an attitude towards animals in general that is ingrained in the upbringing of people and from society. Like I would expect heterosexual men to be much more likely to oppress and sexually abuse women if from the earliest upbringing they had been taught by everything around them that women are inferior. Just maybe.
When you have lots of visible samples that lead to an unfavorable conclusion, is it scientifically correct to claim that "there are others out there not visible and whom I know absolutely nothing about. But they surely don´t match the others who are visible
Not surely, but maybe. Yes, there is the assumption that there may be a correlation between being the type of person who uploads porn to beastforum and being the type of person who may not care as much about their animal's well being.
supporting my notion that "zoophilia" for many is but a temporary phase; they participate as long as it lasts, but vanish into oblivion once they got rid of it
For some, for some not. Do you really know their reasons after they vanished? I was not in any way well known of course, but in the statistics I vanished for a while too. Not because I lost interest in animals, but because I lost interest in the communities. Not doubting that there might be many who join out of "curiosity" and really do lose interest or something, just maybe not always.
f you still can´t believe my words, then please explain why it is NOW that we are outlawed
Well, after the supreme court explanation, maybe not...
Anyway, I don't know. By now I just accept that I don't understand why society does what it does. For example why is it still socially accepted to be religious? Why is it still so hard to get vegan food everywhere? Etc. I just don't know.
although our community was equally, if not more visible back in the nineties.
Visible to whom? Online communities were obviously only visible to a small circle of tech enthusiasts who even had an internet connection back then. Nowadays everyone has a facebook account and shares campaigns and organizes in groups...
G_Shepherdfluffy wuffy 3 points on 2016-05-09 20:33:00
Bestiality “is the single greatest predictor of people who will molest children,”
OK, I'm already done with this article, there is no scientific backing to his theory, just shitposting that would make the onion proud.
But "scientific research" is so often quoted by media, without them investigating if it's just a hype, bogus or just a theory.
media joins the bandwagon and declares its true.
of course we all know the media does this.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-05-10 04:58:25
Well, don´t just use the usual self victimization here. As unpleasant it may be to our community, but there seems to be some form of link between bestiality and child molestation. It´s not a direct link, I´ll explain later on.
In many cases involving distribution of animal pornography, child porn also is found. For someone inexperienced and unfamiliar with the broad spectrum of individuals that´s more or less involved with our orientation, it just isn´t so obvious and false conclusions based on only a part of the visible data can be drawn. If you don´t know the different types of individuals and the different motives the sexual interest in animals is based on, you simply can´t avoid to connect things that have no real connection.
It´s no secret that our community is quite "unpicky" with its members and people only in it for the "breaking a taboo" reason are just as accepted as full blown true zoos. Remember that zoophilia now means any form of sexual contact with animals to the public due to the fact that nobody objected when science started to use this term that way. So, for anyone outside our orientation, someone who engages in sex acts with animals truly "is" a zoo, no matter what else he is doing.
We have to acknowldge that there are many out there WITHOUT an orientation, but a state of mind Sigmund Freud coined the term "polymorphous perverts" for. There are folks out there who literally would do anything at least once, people with "bucket lists" etc. When you remember that anyone having sex with an animal once is considered a "zoophile" by society and science, totally abandoning the possibility that these individuals might be such "polymorphous perverts" not belonging to our group at all, it may still be unjustified from our pov, but nonetheless valid from societies´and scienctists´points of view to link bestiality to child molesting.
As a conclusion I´d like to offer this:
Yes, there IS a certain connection between besitality and child molesting. But people who are engaged in both of these things usually don´t qualify as a genuine zoophile. As long as the common misinterpretation of zoophilia is the predominant one not only in society, but also in our own community, it is partially justified to insist on a certain linkage of bestiality to child molesting. As I said before countless times: installing a definite and binding definition of zoophilia IS vital. By shying away from doing it, we only let things get worse; without establishing a "trademark zoophilia", we will continue suffering from seemingly illegit studies like the one that´s dealt with here. I´ll repeat myself again: I´m not trying to push you into doing such a coining for selfish purposes or because I like to feel superior. I´m insisting on that because it could help us drawing a definite line between us and the countless fetishists, taboo breakers, sadists and manipulative bastids that are fucking up our public image so bad. becoming "intolerant" here is nothing else but common sense and self defense.
By blaming the media, nothing is won. We all have to question ourselves if in realit it´s not us who are to blame, at least partially, for upholding an ambivalent public image by failing to speak out loud and clear about those who constantly invade our territory, take us hostage and leave us to deal with the damage done.
It´s basically like cancer; our self healing abilities seem to be nonexistent because the body does not recognise the malicious cells within itself. Surgery is needed. Let´s start this surgery and cut out the malign cells pushing us closer to our final demise.
Scientists have to rely on previously gathered data; the media can only report on scientists juggling that data....but we have the power to replace that data with a more coherent and more genuine facts.
We are equally to blame for the general fuck up here.Stop pointing fingers, folks.
G_Shepherdfluffy wuffy 1 point on 2016-05-10 16:34:13
Hmm, that could explain his views on the linking sexualities, fair point.
As of the zoophilia community, I don't have any clue how the community is, I just joined this place here.
I wouldn't know where to go to, I'd prefer a chatroom of some sort.
What I've read so far is that there are folk that are in for just sticking their dicks in (or have them inserted) without any feeling for the animal (which is something I simply don't understand, how can you just "do it" without any feels)
I hope my points make some sense, in what I mean XD
Not the best in trying to write down my thoughts
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-05-15 08:52:11
Yes, there IS a certain connection between besitality and child molesting.
Is that a personal opinion or something backed up by science?
And science does know the difference between a bestialist (some one who is using animals as a masturbatory aid for what ever reason) and a zoosexuals/zoophiles.
Is the uneducated citizens that do not know the difference. This is why educating the masses is a good thing to get support for zoosexual right.
They are using bestiality/zoosex and animal sexual abuse as synonyms. Which is false, because non-abusive zoosex is also bestiality and it is not sexual abuse. And by doing this fallacious comparison, they claim that zoosex = you are going to do sexual crimes against humans. Which may be true if we talk about sexual abuse of animals, unlikely to be true if we talk about non-abusive zoosex
Bigots using bigoted tactics to paint all bestiality as being always abusive always and a danger to society to make a blank ban of all of it, without caring that innocent people will be punished for doing non-abusive zoosex.
Anyone remembers when homosexual sex was illegal? And they claimed that being homosexual = molesting/raping children and other bullshit that they used to make gay sex a crime? They are using the same tactics against zoosexuals.
/r/zoophilia archive
So this will be a series:
Not sure if they are all going to be on sex with animals, but this sounds like a finished piece.
Still it leaves glaring questions:
Then why don't you try the laws to recognize emotional harm for animals instead of trying to get bestiality banned?
Has she actually done any credible research?
I didn't find that much... Maybe this: https://www.academia.edu/7769674/Link_between_bestiality_and_human_sexual_offending
This can hardly be called "research". That's stating a hypothesis. A quote:
No. This study says it can not establish that this link exists in general. It only described the link in the special case of youth offenders. Here is a quote from this study:
The authors themselves speculate about the nonexistence of this link in the populations that they have explicitely not studied! Claiming that this study establishes a "link between bestiality and juvenile offending" is basically the same as quotemining.
Then there is this: https://www.academia.edu/6359692/Understanding_Bestiality_and_Social_Responses_to_Offenders
Yes, we knew that already.
This is the only thing that turns up on google scholar: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utvswsummit/Third/april11/3/
Most notably I can not find anything where she examined whether there might be cases where sex between humans nonhumans do no harm.
So she claims she is the only one (literally) who is qualified to talk on the topic and people are just letting her "train" law enforcement? So far I haven't actually seen a justification why bestiality needs to be unconditionally investigated as a crime anyway, except for these hypothesized links between bestiality and sexual offenses against people and children. I mean, these links are far from proven to exist in general...
“There are no laws recognizing emotional harm for animals" Yeah especially farm animals who are stuffed in cages and shot before being eaten.
yawn...boy, you waste too much time on shit like this. It´s basically the same old "researcher uses wrong source of data, arranges it to prove prejudices already accepted as "the truth" and carved in stone, gets lots of attention, declares him-/herself an expert" scenario...nothing new under the sun, if you ask me.
Still, the fundamental problems aren´t adressed..neither from this bogus researcher, nor from you who should already know better. Until we finally divide our "interest group" into bestialists and genuine zoos once and for all, society will continue to mistake anyone having sex with an animal as "one of those zoophiles" ,the data gathered and used for such studies will stay flawed and basically irrelevant. We face the same problems here as the German cannabis users face: no valid data can be used as it is nearly impossible to retrieve, studies are made based on corrupt data , hinting at the wrong conclusions, cannabis won´t be legalized as studies seem to imply negative effects...new studies are made based onto data gathered from those who came in contact with the law using cannabis...rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Even Beetz´and Miletskis´ studies are flawed because anything that those who emailed their stories to those two researchers isn´t more than self biased folklore. Even the worst animal abuser could have easily told "how gentle he is with the animals" and "how non abusive all of this is". What we really need is validated data that´s been collected under the supervision of researchers.That basically means a stranger has to pay you and your animal a visit, observing everything (even "that" as well), drawing independent conclusions instead of just believing in "zoo folklore". Only a few of us will be comfortable with an arrangement like this and a spectator watching the intercourse (at least, I hope so...), so it´s pretty sure to say that obtaining an exonerating study based on actual observations that is reliable and valid won´t happen too soon.
By the way: I hope you know that your continued attacks on studies like this can easily be read as vigorously defending bestiality, even in it´s darkest shades. Demanding a general legality will most definitely put across the totally wrong message here. Another thing you miss out on completely: zoophilia is a crime that´s very hard to prove unless you actively participate in creating evidence that can be used in court. Be it pictures, porn, hooking up with "another zoo" on craigslist and similar bullshit platforms known to be frequently scanned by authorities...it´s always the "zoo" who contributes a big chunk to his own exposure and persecution. The only other way to get your ass in serious trouble without your participation would be collecting DNA samples from your animals shortly after intercourse, what you can avoid by defending your privacy at all costs. Tl;dr: authorities will be hunting ghosts if you stay smart. All research, all laws, all of the pressure inflicted upon us is only effective on those who neglect basic reason and caution.
YOu can complain about the obvious wrongs and fallacies of this study as long as you want, but you won´t trigger any revolution with your constant nagging and complaining. Things won´t change until we as a community change and separate from the bad "ambassadors" of our orientation.
To offer a solution to the problem, I can only reiterate my porposal of some kind of "licensed zoophilia" where you are allowed to have a relationship with an animal, but are under the state´s/authority´s supervision; with unschedueled visits from vets to ensure the animal´s wellbeing and psychological examinations of the alleged zoophile to exclude the fake forms of this orientation, such as substitute zoophila (can´t get a human), the disturbingly common fucks-anything-that-walks mentality and fake ass bestiality/uses-animal-for-live-sex-toy individuals. As a favorable side effect, my proposal would also generate more reliable and valid data of zoophilia.
We basically suffer from one simple fact: unless we finally can prove our claim of being harmless or even beneficial to our animal, we won´t get anywhere. Such a solid proof can only be obtained by genuine research on an actual zoophile. If, and only if the common belief of zoophilia being undeniably harmful to the animal is smashed by more and more evidence of the opposite, we will experience a true change. Without it, such studies like the one you criticized above will be the predominant flavor and all your posts and (partially justified) complaints won´t change anything about it.
It shouldn't matter who we embrace or exclude. Good science should automatically arrive at the correct conclusion.
Well, the article is not a study, it's a collection of statements of different people and I don't only attack it, for example I agree with one of the points:
Just not with the way they are going about it.
I guess I did rant too much again, but I really wanted to ask the question about Jenny Edwards - She's not a nobody: Her "research" is being taught to law enforcement, nationwide. But has her research been peer reviewed in any meaningful way? Do real researchers take it seriously? Or is there a void where no researchers are interested in the topic apart from those who are interested in bestiality as a crime?
And I will never agree to that. You know that all over the world zoophiles are criminalized for no particular reason. You just need a small shift of voters to conservative/christian political parties and next thing you know all registered zoophiles get their animals taken away to "protect" them. Hey, what if for some freak reason the AFD isn't going to implode, but takes the majority? What if in the end we get a really right wing government? Are you prepared to be committed into a psychiatric institution to get "treated"?
Why would you trust people and the government so much to create a registry of known sexual deviants? Because you had some good experiences with the people in your vicinity? Good luck giving power over your personal live to a random "state inspector". Who is guaranteeing that your inspector will not be a sympathizer of organizations like Ärzte Gegen Zoophilie? After all, the Bundesverband Praktizierender Tierärzte supported the supposed "ban". Sure, you can probably fight it in court, but are you prepared for that shit show, however long it would last? That wouldnb't happen? Just look towards america. Currently there are more state employees losing their jobs than you'd think because they intentionally ignore their supreme court rulings in regards to LGBT rights. In my view putting all zoophiles under Generalverdacht like that is a massive infringement on civil rights and I'll always be opposed.
I say, we shouldn't have to and that it's all on the people who want to criminalize zoophiles to provide evidence for a need to do so, but yes, this proof would always be good to have.
If I was living together with a dog, if the researcher was guaranteed to be impartial and it was guaranteed not to take too much time out of my day I would do it. But I don't get the feeling you'd want me to represent you. :)
Anyway, from what I heard from the ZETA Verein, their offers to researchers to have their animals examined have actually been declined for some reason, so I don't suppose it's happening anytime soon.
So handing out licenses is putting people under "Generalverdacht"? Drivers licenses make you a potential law breaker? Really? Only because you can be held accountable for your doings when you fuck up? I really can´t get my head around your way of thinking here.
And: what solution do you have to offer? I mean...anything besides the "legalize it " general absolution you like to insist on? I see it that way: we have a conflict of two legit demands here. the demand of us zoos to be able and allowed to love the way it feels natural to us, but also the state´s legit demand to protect animals from any unnecessary harm inflicted on them. The only feasible way to solve this conflict is searching for something that includes both sides here. A general illegalisation isn´t gonna work, a general legalisation won´t work either. In both of those scenarios, someone´s interest will always be neglected. Your solution of general allowance will open doors for animal abuse...and don´t you forget that exactly this kind of unrestrained "freedom" is what brought us to the point of introducing new laws. Don´t deny that there are vast archives of porn that is clearly abusive to animals out there and naturally forms a certain public image of our group; exactly this is what made the "Ausschuss" rethink things and allowed the new law to pass after it has been rejected several times. I happen to know that what shifted Goldmann and his colleagues from rejection to passing our new law was showing them beastforum and the vast sites hosting animal pornography, reassuring the claims of the antis that "zoophilia" has turned from a relatively neglectable practice of only a few to an epidemic with organized crime structures behind it. The fact that our orientation has turned into a moneymaker, a "new" game within the fetish sector, a public nuisance. You surely can continue pointing at the inconsistencies in studies, but as long as you can´t offer any REASONABLE solution that´s not opening doors for animal abuse, you truly come across as an "insulted liver sausage" (beleidigte Leberwurst).
In my proposal, there surely are some things that need further elaboration...some problems, like the one you mentioned regarding prejudiced vets, certainly do exist. But if we deny anything except total "freedom", nothing will progress anyway. By the way: those few vets organized against "zoophilia" surely have an obvoius "conflict of interest" and would disqualify for a simulaneous membership in their anti group and as an expert evaluating actual zoophile relationships. My own experiences with vets are mostly positive although I dare to say they ALL had suspicions about my relationship with my mare. One vet even defended me from accusations by saying that she never has seen another human-horse relationship so intimate, close and based on total trust. I personally know roughly 20 vets, no one ever gave me problems. I really have the notion that it´s those who don´t have any real experience either with leading a zoo life or having to deal with vets who exaggerate tremenduously, who focus on an alleged general hostility towards zoophiles. Maybe I´m just an extremely lucky guy, but I never had to face much animosity; the amount of never-been-active zoos complaining about something they don´t know shit about is too damn high. ;)
No, seriously, it´s similar to the common misconception of being discriminated against in the LGBT community. I´m not saying discrimination doesn´t exist, but in my opinion, it´s totally exaggerated and not based on actual facts. I do undertand that living in an environment you deem hostile is stressful sometimes, but you´ll have to ask yourselves if your perception isn´t somehow biased and you´re basically running from ghosts, being scared of things that aren´t real when examined closely.I do understand that it´s a damn comfortable thing to claim the position of the pariah, the scapegoat, the underdog...but when I recall my life so far, I never felt being discriminated or opressed by my non zoo environment. Maybe I´m right when I say that it´s not your orientation that determines the reactions towards you, but your basic character, the display of true love that turns zoophilia into something at least tolerable instead of something you need to wipe off the face of the earth.
You asked me why I would trust the gov´mnt to have a registry of "zoophiles"...well, you should know that there is a possibility of anonymized groups with identifying data only available to the scientists conducting the study. This is a common procedure for researchers researching illegal activities and I wonder why you don´t know that. Participating in such a study would protect the subject of research from punishment like it protects those participating in a study on medical marijuana..anonymized, but identifiable by the researchers.
Honestly, you seem to be cherrypicking on all possible negatives instead of trying to find a solution besides your dominant "just make it legal" attitude. As if we are in any position to be so damn picky...this is what I call arrogance, mate.You want a solution that totally fits your demands, in your way, with you making the rules.Well, that´s NOT gonna happen...wake up. I also think that you´re exaggerating on political shifts towards the right wing...please tell me, do you expect homosexuality to return to an illegal status because the AfD might take over the power? It would be quite ironic if the LGBT community returns to the "illegal" status, considering the fact that they aren´t very supportive to us...maybe they´ll find themselves in a similar position as us very soon when your scenario of a political shift becomes true.
Which is still illegal.
I'm not arguing for unrestricted freedom. It should be restricted where animals are harmed. Producing porn by abusing animals is at least borderline illegal and even if it is not in some countries, it should be.
Still, I don't think a law in germany will change much in this situation, because I don't think much of this is filmed in germany...
Still, the danish animal ethics council managed to form a differentiated opinion:
Now was that so hard? Would it really have been impossible for the Ausschuss in Germany to come to a similar differentiated opinion?
Well, my opinion happens to be that it's only reasonable to reject a surveillance or police state that, and that you should be able to do whatever you want to do without your government's explicit approval unless you infringe on the rights of others, human or nonhuman. Let's ban drinking alcohol, because it opens the door for abusers to rape drunken people?
Well, driving in public where other people are without proper training is not possible to do safely, no matter your intentions, and only that is illegal without a driver's license. That's like operating an uncontrolled weapon.
If you want to drive without a driver's license you can safely and legally do that on your own private grounds, when the necessary precautions to prevent random strangers to wander into your path are met.
So it's a bit different.
There is a simple way for imposing mandatory physical and mental health checks for pets that I would agree with: If every pet owner had to do it. Maybe every 6 months or so. After all, it's a valid concern that abused animals can't go to the police on their own. The vets would be trained in finding signs of abuse, sexual and nonsexual, but you shouldn't have to disclose that you're a zoo, so they're not biased.
You are right, I do not know how many "good" or "bad" vets there are. As far as I know there are no statistics. Maybe someone should do a survey. I only know what I can read online:
And in their "about us" section they say:
(No, I have done no research on how influental and big they really are.)
Well, just now you compared it with a driver's license.
But still, who appoints the researchers? After all,
Thus my question, how serious her research is really taken in scientific circles.
No. But sex with animals? Even with the so called "center" of CDU I can see that happening any day. Gay people are historically recognized as being victims of discrimination in the public record. Zoophiles? Not so much.
Oh boy...you´re really one of those blessed with total ignorance and an unhealthy antipathy of rethinking things from another point of view, aren´t you? Yes, animal abuse would still be legal when all bestial acts are legalised, but you´re totally missing out on the fact that the new law was introduced by the government to actually have something in hands to persecute something that is almost impossible to persecute when only the animal welfare laws apply. You could not interfere with a person who is constantly abusing an animal of his own and withdraws it from any further examination when physically injured. I told you before that even the most hard core conservative knows how inapplicable the anti "zoophilia" law actually is on those who abstain from handing out any visible sign. The law primarily was meant to repel a certain percentage that I refer to as "wanna-try-out" bestialists. It clearly transports a message to all of those only in it for the thrill and taboo; it also makes it harder for amateur animal pornographers to suck out of allegations easily by stating the films made are only for "private purposes" and not intended to be published. The law mostly aims at the growing commercialisation of zoophilia and it equally raises attention for this kind of conduct in vets and everyday folks alike. What once was unthinkable when someone walks by you with a dog suffering from a ripped perineum is now recognized as possible animal abuse ad hoc. I´m not defending outlawing zoophilia, but I also see that total "freedom" given to a scene with a significant high percentage of outright animal abusers only serves the needs of the abusers, demanding a return to this kind of status is just silly and additionally not very zooish. Something had to be done about the growing animal porn, the abuse, the tendency to meet with other "zoos" to have a collective go at animals. I really don´t blame the government for that law although it affects me equally as it is not very specific, but it was foreseeable it would be that way as you really can´t demand a more diversified view at us from anyone outside our community if even the community is unable to draw a clear line between non abusive and abusive behavior. Some defend animal porn, others like me wanna see it banned. Some advocate fencehopping, saying it´s not so bad, others will contradict.
You keep posting the Danish council´s views. Good for you. But honestly irrelevant. That´s one, only ONE opinion among thousands with another, more rejecting overtone. You´re fishing for things that support your views, that´s legit. But, as you may have recognized, the Danish council does not give any kind of solution to the problematic behavior they have spoken out on. They don´t have any solution for that, too. The don´t give an alternative. As long as there is no real and practical way to separate us from folks doing all that stuff by law, a full ban on interspecies sex is only logical. Since we are such a small minority, nobody wastes his precious time on working out exact rules and laws here.Especially with all the other shitty stuff going on out there, demanding more attention than a bunch of "animal lovers".
One thing definitely is clear: we don´t share the same approach on the issue of legal zoophilia. Whereas you seem to place the emphasis on human freedom and would tolerate/ accept animal casualities that naturally will occur when total legalisation is granted, my approach places the emphasis on the animal´s wellbeing. If only one animal suffers from "free zoophilia", it is enough for me to tolerate/accept being criminalized by authorities and shifts my freedom to live the relationships I consider natural from a legal right to something I have to earn by gaining the people´s trust and silence. We won´t agree, I guess...but your approach has been tried out by ZETA and associates for so long now and has had no effect so far. How about not doing the same experiment with the same frame conditions over and over again, asking why the result remains the same?
By the way: you misunderstood my drivers license analogy: to get one, you have to demand it from the state, you have to prove worthy of the trust (by examinations and testing your knowledge) that´s been put in you to drive around with a weapon on wheels.You can get stripped of it when you fuck up big time. You can be held accountable for your mistakes. In one word: regulation. Your zoo life would be regulated in a way like your life as a car driver is regulated. Your "ban alcohol" analogy misses the point. Alcohol can be used without a car, but you can´t "zoo" without an animal.
P.S.: The bpt is exactly such a legit representative of all German vets like ZETA is a legit represenative of all German zoos. ;)
Are there really a lot of individuals who blatantly abuse animals sexually within this "orientation" and claim to be completely non-abusive, as you seem to imply there are?!? I think it's possible I may not have too much experience with the overall community. I don't use animal porn and was banned from BeastForum the same day that I created an account there many years ago. Maybe there is a lot that I don't know...
Why would anyone want to be abusive towards animals in this way? Are they just maniacally horny and out of control of themselves or....? Forgive my ignorance if that's what I am.
Since having sex with animals became more widespread around the year 2000, mainly based on the increase of freely available AP, our once tiny group has been invaded by masses of folks with highly doubtable motives. Our orientation became some sorta new playground for fetishists and taboo breakers. Zoophilia was perceived as a "new" and thrilling deviancy, one that still had the flair of dangerous and out-of-bounds experience. Today, "zoophilia" has turned into something that has become a tiny, but essential part of various other sexual subcultures. "Zoophilia" can be found as another form of s/m play (" master told me to get fucked by dog..."), and as a means of degradation ("filthy dogwhore"),for example. It is used as a moneymaker (beastforum and other sites distributing porn for cash) and to spice up human relationships ("threeway with doggy"). I also have witnessed a special form of "dick upgrading" in certain gays and women, with the size of the penis being the main feature to turn towards animals. Sometimes, I jokingly say that many "zoos" would quit immediately on animal stuff if there would be an overnight shapeshift of all animal cocks into average sized human ones. 90% of gay zoo and 50% of hetero zoo would be over one minute after the shapeshifting. ;) (Prepare for code red, DEFCON 1 ;) )
Now, let´s take a look at the circulating animal porn. If beastforum is good for one thing, then it´s the fact BF serves as a good qource of actual insights in the ways "zoos" have sex with animals. It is very representative of what really is going on out there in our name. Although I´m not an avid watcher and the number of films I´ve seen is pretty low, I noticed more or less abusive tendencies in almost all of them. Until today, I could not point out a single flic where a real, non staged form of actual affection for the animal is displayed, but could point out lots of abusive practices the persons involved frequently use. Be it tieing up and/or cornering a mare to have intercourse, be it not recognizing clear signs of rejection and/or ignoring them unintentionally (lack of knowledge) or even purposedly; the high number of such videos leads to a very disturbing conclusion if you extrapolate percentages and apply them to our global community. Now you could object and say that this is porn, not reality. But due to the fact that there is such a huge amount out there labeled "amateur" in addition with the fact that even self proclaimed "zoos" who insist on being a zoo with morals often positively comment on these dubious videos in BF, I dare to say that this actually IS how "we" are. The general picture I get is that all of our self given morals and rules are ignored a) out of lack of knowledge and interest ("What? Learn riding? Me just wants fuck horsie..."), b) the tendency to reject applying scepticism to one´s own views (" ... what? Abuse? Nooo, the mare just steps aside to intensify stimulation, dude..." , "...she only stomps he front leg to show how much she enjoys it...") and c) an overall tendency to deny an underlying anthropocentric and very selfish way of thinking. In the end, the human is the one who decides when ,where and how the "action" takes place. It´s a gim but true fact groups like the one in here are a marginalized minority; in here and in other more zooish forums, there are seldom more than 30 - 50 active members, whereas BF has a whopping 1,5 mil. Even if you subtract all the obvious dead and duplicate accounts, I still estimate the real figure being around half a mil. Abusive conduct is more common than non abusive conduct, that´s for sure when you agree on the term "zoophilia" being used as a synonym for "fucks animals". Negative things are not an exception, but "normal" within our special interest group. I still think that Dr. Silke Lautenschläger summed it up best when she said that zoophilia once was a relatively unproblematic sexual conduct only a few people engaged in, but with the commercialisation of the internet, it mutated into something more vile and atrocious, with more and more people indulging into these practices, a formation of some kind of an "internet cult" of animal fucking with organized crime-like structures operating in the background. This perfectly matches my observations and also finds it´s analogy in the "normal" porn changes towards a harder, more brutal and increasingly less funny form. Just show some 70´s porn to a porn user of today and he´ll just ask you "WTF? How is THAT sexy?" The whole sex thing shifted from mild to wild, from friendly to abusive, from entertaining to sickening by the total commercialisation of sexuality we face nowadays. Having no "bucket list" and objecting to some forms of aberrative sexuality, calling out the obvious psychological implications that lead to that aberration most likely will grant you the status of a "prude","intolerant asshole", etc...
But let´s return to the topic to summarize it:
We, the ones who actually have earned the right to use the z-word by our actions, are a small minority and our morals and rules are deemed irrelevant by the vast majority of "animal sex afficionados". The public image has formed around the visible evidence available out there (a.k.a. porn) and it shows that abusive actions are quite common among "zoophiles"."Our" interest in animals very often orbits around the sex part, silly myths like "when a mare pees, she´s having an orgasm" and "winking shows enjoyment" included. Often, underlying ego- and anthropocentric attitudes can be identified by a closer look and questioning the "zoo". Bad representation like "The Horseman" from Mark Matthews that is mistaken by many as a "zoo bible", groups like ZETA also unintentionally or purposedly drawing a very unfavorable picture of zoophilia by shying away from clear statements (fencehopping, possible abuse in animal porn production,etc.) and the fact that only a few chosen zoos are capable to withstand witty questions aimed to unveil all of those "animal-as-a-live-sex-toy, taboo-breaking,fetishism, usage of animals as a means of degradation in sado-maschistic play " attitudes only leads to one conclusion: Zoophilia nowadays is much more abusive than we all like to admit. It´s NOT only a small percentage of folks that abuse, it´s the majority. One of the main reasons why all our efforts to gain tolerance are doomed to fail is the huge discrepancies that show between our zoophile sermon and reality. Another one is the lack of a term that isn´t misused as a label for anyone having sex with animals.Replies on sites hosting animal porn, additionally allowing you to comment, very seldom point out the obvious abuse, although many of us who have no problem watching porn could do something about it, but often don´t even notice the abusiveness out of sheer lack of proper knowledge, heavily contradicting their self claimed status of "animal experts". Is it indifference? Or malicious intent? Or is it selfishness ("Oh, noooes...my precious poooorn!") paired with the usual rosey-tinted glasses that let you go blind for the obvious?
Regarding your last paragraph: Yes, there are many out there placing their own sexual gratification before anything else. They even call themselves "zoophiles" without seeing the contradiction of what they preach and what they practice. Even the old Romans had a proverb for this: * penis erectus non compos mentis * ( An erect dick has no conscience ). This still holds lots of truth, even today. If "zoophilia" is, like the public, many scientists and even zoos themselves assume, the description for "having sex with animals" with no real relevance of the entire emotional part, then saying that "abuse is the rule in zoophilia" is ultimately right and many of the prejudices that are held against us do indeed hold some truth about "us" zoophiles.
Eh, I'm not convinced. You're still only judging the part you can see on the internet. I also doubt that there are 500.000 members of beastforum who could be called "active" (i.e. actually participate in the community instead of doing a couple of one-off posts and then never to be seen again). I'd be surprised if there are 1000.
And I doubt that
is a "new" widespread attitude. Raising animals with the intent to slaughter them and eat their flesh has been widespread for a really long time and to be able to do that, you have to inherently view animals as a commodity as opposed to equal partners and my hypothesis would be that feeling entitled to "use" animals for sex whenever and however the human wants to is born from this mindset more than anything else. Of course, still only a hypothesis. But if the estimated numbers are right, there is a huge chunk of zoophiles not found in any online zoo community, so we wouldn't really know.
You aren´t very familiar with BF, right? Almost every time of the day, nearly 1000 accounts are registered as "active within the last hour". Many are lurkers, others bingedownload porn and never post. Believe me, BF has around half a million of active users, but only around 200 frequently posting in the various threads. Remember that the site`s first and foremost purpose is animal porn distribution, not serving as a meeting point for bestialists/zoos of all couleurs.
I never said that referring to animals as something inferior that has to obey to the human´s likings is new, I said that the masses of non zoo people invading our territory after 2000 brought this common normal people´s attitude into our community. Before the hype, you couldn´t last another second within the community if you displayed such an attitude; you ass would have been kicked twice around the world by all of us. Having that attitude as something so common in our community, THAT is what is new compared to the old zoo community. The level of doggish acceptance, the zoos not expelling those folks because of "tolerance", that´s what is new.
"There is a huge chunk of zoophiles not found in the nline community"....well, no. Sure, it´s dependent on the generation, anyone older than me (50+) may not be present online. But this is only one, maybe two generations of old people. Today, anyone who has access to a computer enganges in online communities. Those few zoos who openly reject to go online do keep their distance mostly for the reason that THEIR way of thinking isn´t represented by any zoo community out there (Please note that almost any form of "zoophilia" has its "fandom and online community, only mine has not...honi soit qui mal y pense ;) ). Mostly , they don´t go online for the same reasons no true zoo can be part of the Beastforum for long. I really doubt your conclusion; claiming that there is a huge chunk of zoos not visible, but surely they must be different from the usual picture the visible "zoos" give is basically "religion". I prefer making sense out of real data, not illusionary, quasi-religious assumptions.
Well, that's exactly it. You don't really know anything about them. After having a quick look, the section "Male Home-made Bestiality Pictures and Movies" has 241 pages, "Female Home-made Bestiality Pictures and Movies" has 149.
Then the section "Beastiality Stories" has 304 pages, "Home-made Artwork" has 81 and "Fantasies" has 221.
Just saying...
Zoo communities, not any community. Many years ago I looked into communities and briefly looked into tlover info, but that wasn't really interesting to me, then I was a bit in blackwolf's forum where I actually got to know someone, but I lost interest there too, so for several years after that I just didn't care about any online zoo communities...
Well, I don't care. I have little interest in most zoo communities anyway, much less the elitist ones. I was over at knotty.me for a while, but I just don't feel like going there anymore. I'm not sure if I'm going to keep coming here either.
No, I'm saying we don't actually know.
Which we don't have.
You´re basically saying here that you never fully engaged in online zoo communities, have no real idea and thus you feel entitled to draw conclusions totally opposed to those from a guy that has been active in the communities for decades. Wow!
"Which we don´t have"...no, wrong! YOU seem to lack data, YOU don´t know. That´s a difference.
You have no idea about Beastforum, right? At any given time of the day, there are roughly around 1000 members registered as "active within the last hour". Many are lurkers, others binge download porn. Believe me, my estimation of half a mil is accurate.
I was not saying that the "humans = masters, animals = slaves" attitude is new, I was trying to say that this attitude being accepted within our community so widely was new. Before the hype of 2000, displaying such behavior and attitude would´ve got you free ass kicking from every zoo and an extended travel around the earth for your animal abusive ass...twice!
Well, I know that you´re studying. When reading your last two sentences above, you surely study nothing scientific, am I right? When you have lots of visible samples that lead to an unfavorable conclusion, is it scientifically correct to claim that "there are others out there not visible and whom I know absolutely nothing about? But they surely don´t match the others who are visible and whom we know lots about. You´re not making up facts that better fit into your weltbild in science when the findings oppose it. Please remember the fact that I´m in this for a little longer than yesterday; I am active in the online community since Lintilla and Sleepy.I´ve seen many come and go, supporting my notion that "zoophilia" for many is but a temporary phase; they participate as long as it lasts, but vanish into oblivion once they got rid of it.I´ve seen the paradigm shift of 2000, from genuine zoophilia to porn based sexual adventurous behavior neglecting any respect for the animals with my own eyes. Over time I met lots of zoos and "zoos", the latter had become the predominant ones after 2000. I´m not making up these things, mate. Ask any veteran, he´ll tell you the same. I understand how hard it must be for you to face the hard facts contradicting your own views of an "all-good-zoos" community, but that´s long gone, friend. The paradigm shift was what ignited the process that now is turning zoophiia illegal worldwide. If you still can´t believe my words, then please explain why it is NOW that we are outlawed although our community was equally, if not more visible back in the nineties. Why now and not back then? Maybe becuse back then, there were lots of sites with explanations and texts regarding zoophilia and little sites featuring porn,while today it just turned around.... maybe?? You can continue to fish for pleasant data that fits your views, even in thin air like you did above. But don´t fool yourself, don´t be dumb. If something smells like shit, tastes like shit and looks like shit, it very likely IS shit. Don´t try to sell me shit and say it´s pizza, dude. And don´t claim that there are "invisible" pizza spices you can´t smell,see and taste because they´re not online...;)
I'm not saying I accept that behavior, I'm saying I think you may overstate the extent and that I think the problem may often not come from an attitude of "I want to abuse animals" but from an attitude towards animals in general that is ingrained in the upbringing of people and from society. Like I would expect heterosexual men to be much more likely to oppress and sexually abuse women if from the earliest upbringing they had been taught by everything around them that women are inferior. Just maybe.
Not surely, but maybe. Yes, there is the assumption that there may be a correlation between being the type of person who uploads porn to beastforum and being the type of person who may not care as much about their animal's well being.
For some, for some not. Do you really know their reasons after they vanished? I was not in any way well known of course, but in the statistics I vanished for a while too. Not because I lost interest in animals, but because I lost interest in the communities. Not doubting that there might be many who join out of "curiosity" and really do lose interest or something, just maybe not always.
Well, after the supreme court explanation, maybe not...
Anyway, I don't know. By now I just accept that I don't understand why society does what it does. For example why is it still socially accepted to be religious? Why is it still so hard to get vegan food everywhere? Etc. I just don't know.
Visible to whom? Online communities were obviously only visible to a small circle of tech enthusiasts who even had an internet connection back then. Nowadays everyone has a facebook account and shares campaigns and organizes in groups...
Bestiality “is the single greatest predictor of people who will molest children,”
OK, I'm already done with this article, there is no scientific backing to his theory, just shitposting that would make the onion proud. But "scientific research" is so often quoted by media, without them investigating if it's just a hype, bogus or just a theory. media joins the bandwagon and declares its true.
of course we all know the media does this.
Well, don´t just use the usual self victimization here. As unpleasant it may be to our community, but there seems to be some form of link between bestiality and child molestation. It´s not a direct link, I´ll explain later on.
In many cases involving distribution of animal pornography, child porn also is found. For someone inexperienced and unfamiliar with the broad spectrum of individuals that´s more or less involved with our orientation, it just isn´t so obvious and false conclusions based on only a part of the visible data can be drawn. If you don´t know the different types of individuals and the different motives the sexual interest in animals is based on, you simply can´t avoid to connect things that have no real connection. It´s no secret that our community is quite "unpicky" with its members and people only in it for the "breaking a taboo" reason are just as accepted as full blown true zoos. Remember that zoophilia now means any form of sexual contact with animals to the public due to the fact that nobody objected when science started to use this term that way. So, for anyone outside our orientation, someone who engages in sex acts with animals truly "is" a zoo, no matter what else he is doing. We have to acknowldge that there are many out there WITHOUT an orientation, but a state of mind Sigmund Freud coined the term "polymorphous perverts" for. There are folks out there who literally would do anything at least once, people with "bucket lists" etc. When you remember that anyone having sex with an animal once is considered a "zoophile" by society and science, totally abandoning the possibility that these individuals might be such "polymorphous perverts" not belonging to our group at all, it may still be unjustified from our pov, but nonetheless valid from societies´and scienctists´points of view to link bestiality to child molesting.
As a conclusion I´d like to offer this: Yes, there IS a certain connection between besitality and child molesting. But people who are engaged in both of these things usually don´t qualify as a genuine zoophile. As long as the common misinterpretation of zoophilia is the predominant one not only in society, but also in our own community, it is partially justified to insist on a certain linkage of bestiality to child molesting. As I said before countless times: installing a definite and binding definition of zoophilia IS vital. By shying away from doing it, we only let things get worse; without establishing a "trademark zoophilia", we will continue suffering from seemingly illegit studies like the one that´s dealt with here. I´ll repeat myself again: I´m not trying to push you into doing such a coining for selfish purposes or because I like to feel superior. I´m insisting on that because it could help us drawing a definite line between us and the countless fetishists, taboo breakers, sadists and manipulative bastids that are fucking up our public image so bad. becoming "intolerant" here is nothing else but common sense and self defense.
By blaming the media, nothing is won. We all have to question ourselves if in realit it´s not us who are to blame, at least partially, for upholding an ambivalent public image by failing to speak out loud and clear about those who constantly invade our territory, take us hostage and leave us to deal with the damage done. It´s basically like cancer; our self healing abilities seem to be nonexistent because the body does not recognise the malicious cells within itself. Surgery is needed. Let´s start this surgery and cut out the malign cells pushing us closer to our final demise. Scientists have to rely on previously gathered data; the media can only report on scientists juggling that data....but we have the power to replace that data with a more coherent and more genuine facts. We are equally to blame for the general fuck up here.Stop pointing fingers, folks.
Hmm, that could explain his views on the linking sexualities, fair point.
As of the zoophilia community, I don't have any clue how the community is, I just joined this place here. I wouldn't know where to go to, I'd prefer a chatroom of some sort.
What I've read so far is that there are folk that are in for just sticking their dicks in (or have them inserted) without any feeling for the animal (which is something I simply don't understand, how can you just "do it" without any feels)
I hope my points make some sense, in what I mean XD Not the best in trying to write down my thoughts
Is that a personal opinion or something backed up by science?
And science does know the difference between a bestialist (some one who is using animals as a masturbatory aid for what ever reason) and a zoosexuals/zoophiles.
Is the uneducated citizens that do not know the difference. This is why educating the masses is a good thing to get support for zoosexual right.
This bit fully covers everything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw
They are using bestiality/zoosex and animal sexual abuse as synonyms. Which is false, because non-abusive zoosex is also bestiality and it is not sexual abuse. And by doing this fallacious comparison, they claim that zoosex = you are going to do sexual crimes against humans. Which may be true if we talk about sexual abuse of animals, unlikely to be true if we talk about non-abusive zoosex
Bigots using bigoted tactics to paint all bestiality as being always abusive always and a danger to society to make a blank ban of all of it, without caring that innocent people will be punished for doing non-abusive zoosex.
Anyone remembers when homosexual sex was illegal? And they claimed that being homosexual = molesting/raping children and other bullshit that they used to make gay sex a crime? They are using the same tactics against zoosexuals.