tl;dr: It has been used 0 times and a MP for the social democrats
gave a apology because they made politics on a area were they had a lack of evidence
Who would have thought?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 03:54:08
Didn't stop anonymous and Opbeast from tooting their horns like it was new years day or something...
I'm with you, it's complete crap. But you knew that.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-06-04 05:42:04
OpBeast is only capable of "doxxing" and outing folks who tend to be blatantly dumb and/or criminally careless with personal data.
IMHO someone who creates a facebook/twitter account for sharing animal porn and/or is aggressively voicing pro "zoophilia" opinions is to be held responsible for his/her actions. You don´t bame the fire for burning you when you already know that it is dangerous to stick your hand into it, right? Stupidity seems to be strong in some members of the worldwide beasty community...
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 06:56:00
OpBeast is also capable of mass-emailing campaigns to legislators. Whether these have any effect, I have no idea, but they claimed they did with Denmark... whether I believe that is another story.
And no, I don't really think the people that get outed by OpBeast are smart. That does not remove them from my empathy, however. Rather it increases it. It's sort of like watching a bully beat up a retard, and being able to do nothing in response.
(The image is from one vulgar and pretty angry anti zoophile from germany who even most of the animal rights people distance themselves from. The text says something along the lines of "These devices for forcing dogs to consensual sex (he tried to be sarcastic) ARE advertised by ZETA!! to celebrate the Zoophile Rights Day 2016".)
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 09:31:08
I know... my analogy is not perfect. Maybe a better comparison would be the Mexican American war. Mexico threw out our diplomat who tried to make an offer to try to purchase half of mexico, and we proceeded to beat the bloody shit out of Mexico and take the same land by force, on our terms.
Mexico was like a wimpy kid in this comparison getting beat up by a much larger bully. Sort of what I meant. You can't help but feel sorry for the kid even though technically, he did throw the first punch (Like Mexico throwing out our diplomat, probably not the wisest choice tbh but can you not help but still feel sorry for them?).
...That's probably a terrible analogy as well. Give me a break, it's late. ;)
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-05 11:24:56
Huehueehue...Thierfelder surely is one of a kind...;)
The good thing about him is that he´s not a very smart man.He´s a terribly unskilled liar and most of his lies he gives away by using limitless hyperbole. BUT: right after I had seen his accusations of zoos using dog breeding stands; I really couldn´t help but think that he may be right in some, but very few cases. I´ve seen so called "zoos" tie a mare´s hindlegs like it is done in breeding. I´ve seen photos of a dog´s scrotum put into one of these "ball torture" gears you can buy in sex shops. I´ve seen one guy literally raping a cow with the help of a sling laid around the cow´s neck. And honestly, how far away from practices like these is the actual use of a dog breeding stand to have sex with a female dog? An actual proof for Thierfelder´s accusations may not exist yet, but for me, it is kinda plausible that someday, somewhere on this world, one "zoo" will be fed up with the fact his bitch won´t let him do her and orders a breeding stand...if it hasn´t been done already...
G_Shepherdfluffy wuffy 1 point on 2016-06-05 20:32:17
this wouldn't at all surprise me to be honest.
I've seen this breeding stand thing in furry art, but never knew it was an actual thing (the more you know)
I do wonder, why do they use them to begin with.
Never seen them before in my life.
If they use them for dog breeding, it would be kind of pathetic.
The breeding stands are, like almost every device used for professional breeding, used to prevent injuries and attacks on the male. In natural breeding, the act often includes reactions from the female possibly hurtful to the male. I´m not familiar with dog breeding, so I´ll stick to what I know, horse breeding.
In the natural mating ritual of horses, the mare usually will fend off the stallion several times before she will let him mount. She will bite and kick him off. If you are the owner of a motherf*%$&ing expensive stallion like Totilas ( financial value extends one mil Euros), you really don´t want a mare to kick him in the balls accidentally. As the AI semen tubes you can buy for lots of money, each attempt of natural mating ("Decksprung") is expensive. That´s how owners of expensive breeding stallions make money...and you really don´t want your money source to dry out for several weeks until the stallion´s junk has recovered from the injury. We´re talking about as much as 500 - 5000 Euros per an attempted natural mating.We Germans even have a word for that money, "Decktaxe" (mating fee).
Any breeding device that restrains the female in any way exists to prevent harm in the first place. That´s why it is common to tie up a mare´s hind legs before breeding, it just diminuishes the chances for the stallion to get hurt.
Breeding is mostly focused on the male. Surely it is also important owning "good females", but the male breeding stock is always way more expensive and selling a stallion producing a lot of healthy and wellshaped offspring can easily turn you into a very rich person overnight.
I focused on horses and horse breeding becuase I´m familiar with this, but I believe that what is true in horse breeding will correspond with similar truths in dog breeding. Breeding stands primarily exist to protect your valuable male lifestock from harm; they also provide the breeder with a more "controlable" mating procedure since the female is restrained from defending herself or from running away.
Using breeding stands may look pathetic from your viewpoint, but from a breeder´s viewpoint, these breeding stands actually make sense.
Such an attitude towards animals surely isn´t easy to bear for a zoophile, but for a breeder, it is the norm.
G_Shepherdfluffy wuffy 1 point on 2016-06-06 11:12:59
hmm, I could somewhat understand this from a champion breeding point.
It's one of the things I find unethical.
"it's because they're animals" oh well, I guess we should create a breeding program for humans, and do the same (then people would flip shit) #endrant
I would love to breed with my dog (when I am in a situation to have a dog) but I'd leave the choice of breeding to them.
I guess my attitude isn't that of a breeder.
fuzzyfurry 2 points on 2016-06-05 21:03:16
Well, he alleged that Komet (I think) "advertised" them and that he actually sued him. So yea, that accusation is just ridiculous.
it is kinda plausible that someday, somewhere on this world
Yes, for every imaginable abuse, there probably is someone somewhere in this world who has done it. But this allegation is so ridiculous, because it is so specific. I mean if someone wants to rape a dog, they'll probably just use some rope or so to tie them up. Unfortunately there are some images and videos of that, and fortunately they sometimes have been used as evidence in animal abuse cases. But as far as I know nobody has ever seen videos or images of abusive bestiality porn including a breeding stand, nor has it ever come up in any bestiality court case. The point is: If they are really concerned about dogs being forced into sex with breeding stands, then a much more obvious target would be the dog breeders who are confirmed to actually use them. Several videos of that can even be found on youtube...
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 09:32:25
No, it´s more like watching a retard getting out his shlong and pissing at the bully´s shin...public distribution of animal porn includes choosing pictures showing human-animal copulation and animal genitalia in a distinctively sexual manner as your profile pic. I don´t care what mental capability somene has, but you don´t write your nasty stuff on a flag and wave it around in public.
The "treatment" those idiots receive is well deserved in my opinion.
I do not hold any empathy for "members" of our community who abuse zoophilia for its shocking effect, openly seeking out fights with OpBeast by publishing/distributing porn via Twitter and FB.
I also wonder what the animals can expect from someone who demonstartes his/her total lack of reaction anticipating capability....what does it tell us about you if you feel the need to show off your little pervo phantasies via Facebook and Twitter? How responsible can someone act when he/she risks huge problems for basically nothing than stupidly dealing out selfish shock effects to annoy others? And don´t you dare to tell me that doing shit like this is fighting for "zoo rights"...
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 09:35:22
I never said it was fighting for zoo rights. I did say they were retarded. Kinda the opposite, really.
I still can't help but feel empathy for someone who's life is totally destroyed, even if they "asked for it." shrugs
zetas212 1 point on 2016-06-07 16:13:55
You don´t bame the fire for burning you when you already know that it is dangerous to stick your hand into it, right?
<paraphrase> anyone "stupid" enough to get caught deserves whatever they get </paraphrase>
Your compassion is admirable :/
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-07 17:31:29
insert generic apologetic sermon for fencehoppers and animal pornographers here....oooh, I see you just did that...
zetas212 1 point on 2016-06-07 19:28:45
insert generic apologetic sermon for fencehoppers and animal pornographers here....oooh, I see you just did that...
Point to me where I did that. Go on, I'll wait. I'm fucking dying to see you pull your head out of your ass long enough to put those words in my mouth.
\*waits patiently\*
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-08 04:25:36
"Kept you waiting,huh?" (quote of some rather unknown videogame hero) ;)
Fact: in almost (if not in any) any case people got into trouble with authorities, publishing, distributing or recording animal porn and/or animal prostitution and/or fencehopping was involved. I frequently scan the internet for new articles of caught "zoophiles", but until yet never came across someone accused of "zoophilia" who behaved according to the zeta rules (the original ones, not the ZETA rules).
All accused ones had their fair share of handing out evidence themselves before they got caught.
So, you basically demand compassion for animal pornographers and fencehoppers. In 99,99% of the cases, it´s them who are caught.
If someone intentionally runs over a red light and crashes his car into another car, then my compassion´s priority is helping the person who was injured by the selfish and irresponsible behavior of the one running over the red light because he felt it below his dignity to wait a few minutes.
If you came into my home and took a swing/kich against my furniture, making my entire room collapse, my natural reaction would be yelling at you idiot; the one thing I couldn´t care less is if you injured your hand/leg when you started "furniture domino day".
I can be compassionate with fellow zoos; if a zoo is caught by accident , without making him-/herself a target by acting irresponsible (making and uploading porn,fencehopping, joining "animal sex clubs", online advertizing, etc.), then my solidarity is unlimited. But in reality, such a responsible person never was caught...at least, not to my knowledge.
You expect my compassion for those who get caught. People only get caught when they act like retards and post porn that can be traced back to them (showing face, showing specific tattoos, identifiable fur pattern, giving out real names of humans and animals...), used online hook up sites (craigslist,beastforum et al.)known to be regularly scanned by police or are caught in the act on another one´s land, with another one´s animal(s). It is true that I don´t give a flying fuck about those folks...whenever someone of them is caught, I instinctively focus on the damage these people do to our public image and our chances to gain tolerance someday instead of giving in to some sort of jesus complex, demanding compassion for people who basically screwed up their lives themselves...and also the lives of many responsible zoos with the top priority of keeping their privacy. The more idiots make it to the news, the more likely "that stange guy living alone with his mare abroad" will be questioned..."Martha, I just read about some perverts called zoophiles. They fuck animals, can you imagine that?Hmmm, now I really wonder what that guy living alone with his mare who shows no interest in humans at all is up to ...let´s go spy on him a little bit"
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 04:00:30
"Who would have thought?"....ahem, I would´ve...
We Germans will face the 3rd anniversary of having "anti zoo laws" in about one month, yet nobody has been sentenced for having sex with animals alone. There´s always another violation of the law that gets you in trouble, like making and distributing animal porn.
For any genuine zoo protecting the privacy of him-/herself and his/her animal, these laws are ineffective and can be seen as lame ducks; the installment of these laws always was solely for the "feelgood" effect of society. " Yeah, we know we cannot do a fuckin´ thing when zoos keep a low profile, but at least we can say that it´s forbidden, so nobody can accuse us of being a safehaven for animal fuckers."
duskwuff 1 point on 2016-06-04 04:21:05
We Germans will face the 3rd anniversary of having "anti zoo laws" in about one month, yet nobody has been sentenced for having sex with animals alone. There´s always another violation of the law that gets you in trouble, like making and distributing animal porn.
So there have been prosecutions for combined violations? Details?
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 05:34:41
Mostly it´s about distribution of animal pornography, as in the case of one guy from Verl who was proven to advertize his dog(s) online for making animal porn .The trial is still running, sadly there´s no other coverage of this than that on anti homepages. You can get an impression by visiting carsten thierfelder´s homepage (German language only...if you dare to call Thierfelder´s babble "German" ;) ).
Some other trials will follow, as Thierfelder writes, mainly for the distribution of animal pornography...we´ll see what the future brings.
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-06-04 08:46:40
I mean who would have thought that an MP would not only revisit the law, but also admit their mistakes?
For germany I have only seen some paper by someone from Die Linke on the Thieme Verlag who came to the conclusion that the (supposed) ban in germany didn't improve anything and was unnecessary. But that paper seems to have vanished. At least I can't find it anymore.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 09:48:44
To be honest with you, I guess that most of the politicians involved in creating the new laws are aware of the fact that the law changed nothing. But it was necessary to create that law...surely not for obvious reasons like preventing unnecessary animal abuse, but for reasons residing on the meta level. I do believe that installment of the new law has discouraged some wanna-try-outs, has sent out a message and has had some (unwanted) effects of activating the community.
As I said many times before: this law NEVER aimed at the genuine zoos who value their privacy higher than "becoming the fetish scene´s next animal porn star". I do believe that it´s not zoophilia itself that made actions necessary, but the ever increasing amount of AP out there that´s easily accessible by anyone. The government needed to lauch some signal to let everyone out there lusting for animals know that our world isn´t a playground you can do whatever you like without having to face some consequences. If you act responsibly and with respect for the animals, you weren´t on their target list.
It´s a common platitude, but politicians are not per se stupid. They also can use their brains...
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-04 10:11:56
Over the last few years, I've been increasingly feeling that democracy is just theatrics to keep the public happy while the politicians try to do some mixture of real work, personal enrichment, and advancing their own beliefs.
It's the only explanation I have for a different legal issue, the way drugs are treated in the UK. Half the population have tried an illegal substance, yet the idea of liberalisation is unthinkable even though enforcement would bankrupt us.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 10:51:30
Deep down in my heart, I´m an anarchist, an anarchist who is familiar with Kropotkin´s and Bakunin´s theories and ideas. But over the years living in capitalism, or in two forms of capitalism (form 1: before the iron curtain fell and the West needed to pretend it was better than those russkies and form 2, the uninhibited hardcore capitalism), I have abandoned anarchism. It simply isn´t working with a population that´s so corrupted by money and consumerism like ours today. greed, egoism, narcicisstic consumerism, the inner void (Quote Marilyn Manson: "There´s a hole in our soul that we fill with dope...and we´re feeling fine")...
well, this kind of people needs guidance of some sort. Democracy provides this guidance without applying too much of pressure or restraint. It´s a sad fact that the so called homo sapiens (wise man)hasn´t found a system yet that ensures the maximum of personal freedom but avoids the mistake of encouraging selfishness beyond an amount that is dangerous and harmful to others, animals and the planet.
Democracy isn´t the better of two evils, it is the best of all evils mankind has invented yet.
Legalisation of soft drugs? Count me in. But there are some incidents I witnessed that keep me from just pouring out weed onto the streets without any limitation or safety consideration. In the beginning of the nineties, I visited Amsterdam often, the ones who behaved the worst by far were Americans who weren´t used to the high effectiveness of dutch weed. Seen some USAnians running naked over Leidesplein, then "visiting" the Oude Kerk, also naked...
As an anarchist, I know that my freedom ends where the freedom of others starts...keeping the balance between these two is extremely difficult. With a population that has been taught the only thing counting is their "personal freedom" for decades now, I heavily doubt that mankind of today is fit for the next evolutionary step and this form of democracy we have now is probably the best way to grant freedom while also defending us from utter chaos of egoism unleashed.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-05 08:52:56
If foreigners desperate to try "stuff" have a tendency to be anti-social in places where that "stuff" is legal (or at least tolerated), that's consistent with some of the stated reasons for the ban in Germany and Denmark. I was going to write "Nobody really wants a sex tourist, that's just creepy.", but then I remembered how different British sex toy shops (opaque windows and airlock-style doors) are from German ones (rotating billboards for dildoking.de in Berlin, the entire length of the red light district of Frankfurt being visible from the train station), and now I'm just not sure what cultures other than my own find creepy.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-05 01:23:51
Didn't germany's supreme court/whatever you call it rule that the law only applies if an animal is forced to do something "akin to physical force?" That's kinda telling.
Of course, Zeta-verein is where I got this, and they may be spinning things.
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-06-05 07:44:37
Yes it did. And that contradicted the original reasoning for the law:
„Die Bundesregierung anerkennt die Tatsache, dass sexuelle Handlungen an Tieren durch den Menschen geeignet sind, den Tieren regelmäßig zumindest Leiden im Sinne des Tierschutzrechts zuzufügen, da hierdurch die Tiere zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen werden.“
"The government acknowledges the fact that sexual acts with animals committed by humans is likely (not really sure how to translate that) to regularly inflict at least suffering in the sense of the animal welfare law, because hereby they are forced into not species appropriate behavior."
I wonder what a court would do with that in an actual case.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-05 10:57:37
The situation German zoos are in at the moment is kind of Janus-headed. On on hand, we have government comments like the one cited by fuzzyfurry. On the other hand, we have this comment from the BVerFG/supreme court that seems to keep a teeny tiny little loophole open for us zoos. Don´t rely on ZETA´s announcement that "zoophilia is legal in Germany"...that is only what ZETA assumes. We will only know about the actual legal situation when the first trial takes place, with someone who is accused of "zoophilia"/ having non harmful sex with an animal ONLY, without other accusations of animal porn distribution etc.
I´ve lived most of my zoo life before the new law was introduced; technically, having sex with an animal was legal before 2013. But even without a law aiming directly at interspecies sex, courts punished people for it...there weren´t many trials, but you were far from being safe from persecution back then.
In the end, it all boils down to the simple question of applicability of the law. When zoos don´t hand out evidence themselves, it is hard to prove you had sex with your animal. The only method that could be suitable for gathering relevant evidence would be collecting DNA samples from your animals or from you. Since having sex with animals is only a minor offense, you have the right to deny any cooperation with authorities. If a zoo in Germany is paying enough attention to his/her privacy and stays under the radar, it really doesn´t matter if there is or isn´t a law.
I simply can´t understand why attacking this law is so important to some...lock the bedroom/ barn door, don´t publish photos or films, stay away from "zoo meetings" and you´ll be good.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-05 19:35:30
It's important to some on principle. Fact is, it wasn't needed, and was nothing more than a direct attack on a people. Whether or not that effects our day to day life, that fact remains. Personally, it is not a big concern of mine, I recognize we are unpopular and accept that. But I can understand why some idealist zoos would be upset by this...
electricfoxx 1 point on 2016-06-04 04:09:21
Unless the government actively seeks out zoophiles, I wouldn't worry about it. There is a clear case against a law like this: eating meat. Killing an animal to eat it clearly harms the animal.
People should remember that most Zoophiles/Zoosexuals would never hurt any animals, why would they hurt someone they love?
Most would not harm animals, but there are some that cause problems (sharing animals, underage porn). We may have to police our community, because no one else will (in a fair way).
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 05:44:21
Read last sentence....baffled
How it comes that truth prevails all of a sudden? ;)
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-06-04 06:59:08
You seem to think implying that we need to police our community means we agree with YOUR way of policing it. I for one, agree with that statement while mostly disagreeing with your views on policing it.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-04 09:10:20
That gave me a particular train of thought. Most communities are full of people who disagree about the specifics of policing while also agreeing that some sort of policing is good.
Unfortunately, the nature of our community prevents any of the usual mechanisms. We can't use democracy because democracy requires identity to prevent ballot stuffing and nobody sane would risk being outed in a hack-leak, there's no way to enforce a dictatorship because people can just go to other websites. (Counting "zoo-ness" as the community rather than /r/zoophilia/, because moderators obviously hold absolute power and we let them because we like it here).
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-06-04 09:40:00
Policing is a hard thing for me to talk about.
I got in trouble for saying openly I would basically turn in a zoo if I knew he was an animal abuser. Days after that comment, I was banned from all zoo forums at the time save knotty.me, which was just getting it's starting members. I was spared there largely because no one there cared about that crap.
I still feel repricussions from that statement, and am still "ban on sight" at zoophilesforum.com, for example.
It's a touchy issue, to say the least. And there ARE zoos who will argue you can't touch any zoophile at all. Makes policing hard.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 11:58:09
Hey, you shouldn´t feel guilty for DOING THE RIGHT THING.
It´s not your fault that these forums give a fuck about morality and true zoophilia, it´s theirs.
If someone is an animal abuser, then I don´t fucking care if he´s a zoo, a one legged bulgarian opera singer, a twodicked alien from space or whatever...this guy needs a nice and clean visit from police...or myself...with the first being the much less painful alternative.
Those "zoos" saying that any zoo is untouchable just because he´s a zoo aren´t real zoos themselves... genuine zoophiles ALWAYS place the wellbeing of animals before human interests.
You definitely should not feel guilty at all...sometimes being thrown out is a proof that you are on the right track. I was thrown out of Beastforum with my first account for no other reason than disturbing their cashflow by pointing out the same things as I do here...Southflorida just sent me an email with this: "I don´t think you fit in here". Sometimes being thrown out isn´t a failure...not at all.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 20:04:17
Did I say I felt guilty?
No. Rather I cussed them up and down the hall in a rather heated PM, partially due to genuine moral outrage, partially due to just being pissed off at the betrayal when I needed the community the most (I had just lost my lover).
I handled it poorly, yes. But I do not regret my actions nor my statements.
And sadly, I would qualify the individuals as zoos 30-30, which muddies things. I know enough about them to know they love their animals and just put way too much credence in the "those in glass houses should not throw stones" sayings. Maybe they aren't "true zoos" but zoos they are, at least by the modern definition. It's problematic.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-06-04 10:01:36
If I didn´t know better, I could get the notion someone fell in love with me here answering to almost every single one of my comments...;)
You may not believe it, but I am surprised that the simple idea of policing the scene isn´t widely refused anymore. I do not claim that my views on policing are the only ones suitable. But until today, even mentioning the need to police our community created an instant shitstorm; "intolerant asshole", " prudish dick" and "bible brainwashed conservative fascist" are just the more harmless insults I had to endure.
Admitting that something needs to be done is a huge step forward; and I say this without any irony and mockery. We can debate about what behavior needs to be discouraged, but IMHO we can´t debate that we need to clean up our turf, establish a strict and binding code of conduct that expells anyone immediately from our community who´s not acting accordingly to it and also punish it if the expelled perpetrator dares to use the z-word to describe him-/herself.
Zoophilia has to become a "trademark"; and like with a trademark, any unlegitimate usage of that trademark must be punished in one way or another, either by court or by direct action.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-04 10:16:36
I don't think what you're suggesting is possible. But I'm going to think about it for a bit and see if I can either prove it impossible or construct an workable model.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 19:54:28
You just hit all the right chords with me I guess, 30-30. Particularly because I both agree and disagree with you on many very intensely emotional points. It makes it a complex relationship to say the least... lol.
Never get me wrong. I respect what you are trying to do. I just don't think wasting energy fighting defintions that already are established as that is a battle you simply cannot win. Maybe it's time we invented a new term, I just have no idea what that should be.
I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm actually quite skeptical of anyone who claims to have the answers by nature. Please don't take it as disrespect for your person. It's anything but.
There was a time not so long ago I thought about establishing a new message board rooted in the "zeta principles" as you'd call it. I even had some moderators lined up to work with me... But it never panned out. See, I agree with the need to redefine ourselves, I think it's priority #1. Here's my main points of contention with you:
1.) I don't think we need to throw other groups "under the bus" to do it, just point out that we are different from them should be enough.
2.) I don't agree with the term we should use. "Zoophile" is tainted beyond repair... it's to the point where it basically means a sexual attraction to animals and nothing more. That may not be where it started, but that's where it is. That's my assessment, but those are only my views and are as imperfect as any.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-05 08:58:02
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-04 20:14:54
A binding code of conduct requires one of:
Real-life identity, so that violations can be pursued in courts
OR User accounts and humans having a one-to-one relationship, to prevent people being banned and then signing up again
Punishing expelled people who call themselves zoos requires:
Real-life identity of the perpetrator, even if they've never been on any forum
The trademark idea's a good one, my skepticism was because I was thinking too much in terms of online communities and identity. According to Wikipedia, Scientology is a registered trademark, as is the symbol for Scientology. If they can do it, we can do it. If we had enough money and someone was willing to both spend it on registering the trademarks and going to court to fight all the legal battles (and there would be a lot, as trademarks are easily lost).
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 21:12:34
I don't think we need to outright trademark it as much as establish our own branding in a counter-propaganda campaign. But that's just my feelings.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-04 21:56:08
We'd have no power (that I know of) to enforce the brand if it wasn't trademarked.
That said, I don't get the impression we've got enough rich skilled lawyers for trademarking to be a good use of our time and effort.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-06-04 23:53:14
No, I'm not speaking legally. I am speaking in terms of peer pressure. And as I have said, it's probably better to dump the existing terms alltogether, and enforce a new one. Less social opposition that way.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-06-05 09:03:04
I see, peer pressure. I'm skeptical that peer pressure would work for us, but I agree about needing a new word.
The only reason the law was passed was to make the rest of the world shut up and stop insinuating that all Danes fuck animals. It's the same way in Norway and Sweden, there's a law on the books but unless you trespass, abuse or rape animals you have very little to worry about. It sucks that it has to be this way, but at least you no longer get stoned to death for loving your pets too much in most parts of the world.
I've been to the vet with my sexually active dog lots of times for check ups and treating allergies. I don't know if the vet has ever suspected anything, but my dog is so happy, friendly and loving that it's most likely the last thing on their mind.
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-06-10 23:25:18
[deleted]
peacheslala97 1 point on 2016-06-09 01:56:20
I think animals should be protected from rape and such like we protect people but we should criminalize people that are very clearly abusing a dog or horse or cow etcetera.
/r/zoophilia archive
tl;dr: It has been used 0 times and a MP for the social democrats
Who would have thought?
Didn't stop anonymous and Opbeast from tooting their horns like it was new years day or something...
I'm with you, it's complete crap. But you knew that.
OpBeast is only capable of "doxxing" and outing folks who tend to be blatantly dumb and/or criminally careless with personal data. IMHO someone who creates a facebook/twitter account for sharing animal porn and/or is aggressively voicing pro "zoophilia" opinions is to be held responsible for his/her actions. You don´t bame the fire for burning you when you already know that it is dangerous to stick your hand into it, right? Stupidity seems to be strong in some members of the worldwide beasty community...
OpBeast is also capable of mass-emailing campaigns to legislators. Whether these have any effect, I have no idea, but they claimed they did with Denmark... whether I believe that is another story.
And no, I don't really think the people that get outed by OpBeast are smart. That does not remove them from my empathy, however. Rather it increases it. It's sort of like watching a bully beat up a retard, and being able to do nothing in response.
Well, when you see stuff like https://twitter.com/MyOp4them/status/734844164593029124 you can only wonder whether they're the retarded ones.
(The image is from one vulgar and pretty angry anti zoophile from germany who even most of the animal rights people distance themselves from. The text says something along the lines of "These devices for forcing dogs to consensual sex (he tried to be sarcastic) ARE advertised by ZETA!! to celebrate the Zoophile Rights Day 2016".)
I know... my analogy is not perfect. Maybe a better comparison would be the Mexican American war. Mexico threw out our diplomat who tried to make an offer to try to purchase half of mexico, and we proceeded to beat the bloody shit out of Mexico and take the same land by force, on our terms.
Mexico was like a wimpy kid in this comparison getting beat up by a much larger bully. Sort of what I meant. You can't help but feel sorry for the kid even though technically, he did throw the first punch (Like Mexico throwing out our diplomat, probably not the wisest choice tbh but can you not help but still feel sorry for them?).
...That's probably a terrible analogy as well. Give me a break, it's late. ;)
Huehueehue...Thierfelder surely is one of a kind...;) The good thing about him is that he´s not a very smart man.He´s a terribly unskilled liar and most of his lies he gives away by using limitless hyperbole. BUT: right after I had seen his accusations of zoos using dog breeding stands; I really couldn´t help but think that he may be right in some, but very few cases. I´ve seen so called "zoos" tie a mare´s hindlegs like it is done in breeding. I´ve seen photos of a dog´s scrotum put into one of these "ball torture" gears you can buy in sex shops. I´ve seen one guy literally raping a cow with the help of a sling laid around the cow´s neck. And honestly, how far away from practices like these is the actual use of a dog breeding stand to have sex with a female dog? An actual proof for Thierfelder´s accusations may not exist yet, but for me, it is kinda plausible that someday, somewhere on this world, one "zoo" will be fed up with the fact his bitch won´t let him do her and orders a breeding stand...if it hasn´t been done already...
this wouldn't at all surprise me to be honest. I've seen this breeding stand thing in furry art, but never knew it was an actual thing (the more you know)
I do wonder, why do they use them to begin with. Never seen them before in my life.
If they use them for dog breeding, it would be kind of pathetic.
Some guy "explains" it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3aZdfnqdzY
I think it speaks for itself.
The breeding stands are, like almost every device used for professional breeding, used to prevent injuries and attacks on the male. In natural breeding, the act often includes reactions from the female possibly hurtful to the male. I´m not familiar with dog breeding, so I´ll stick to what I know, horse breeding. In the natural mating ritual of horses, the mare usually will fend off the stallion several times before she will let him mount. She will bite and kick him off. If you are the owner of a motherf*%$&ing expensive stallion like Totilas ( financial value extends one mil Euros), you really don´t want a mare to kick him in the balls accidentally. As the AI semen tubes you can buy for lots of money, each attempt of natural mating ("Decksprung") is expensive. That´s how owners of expensive breeding stallions make money...and you really don´t want your money source to dry out for several weeks until the stallion´s junk has recovered from the injury. We´re talking about as much as 500 - 5000 Euros per an attempted natural mating.We Germans even have a word for that money, "Decktaxe" (mating fee). Any breeding device that restrains the female in any way exists to prevent harm in the first place. That´s why it is common to tie up a mare´s hind legs before breeding, it just diminuishes the chances for the stallion to get hurt. Breeding is mostly focused on the male. Surely it is also important owning "good females", but the male breeding stock is always way more expensive and selling a stallion producing a lot of healthy and wellshaped offspring can easily turn you into a very rich person overnight.
I focused on horses and horse breeding becuase I´m familiar with this, but I believe that what is true in horse breeding will correspond with similar truths in dog breeding. Breeding stands primarily exist to protect your valuable male lifestock from harm; they also provide the breeder with a more "controlable" mating procedure since the female is restrained from defending herself or from running away.
Using breeding stands may look pathetic from your viewpoint, but from a breeder´s viewpoint, these breeding stands actually make sense. Such an attitude towards animals surely isn´t easy to bear for a zoophile, but for a breeder, it is the norm.
hmm, I could somewhat understand this from a champion breeding point. It's one of the things I find unethical. "it's because they're animals" oh well, I guess we should create a breeding program for humans, and do the same (then people would flip shit) #endrant
I would love to breed with my dog (when I am in a situation to have a dog) but I'd leave the choice of breeding to them. I guess my attitude isn't that of a breeder.
Well, he alleged that Komet (I think) "advertised" them and that he actually sued him. So yea, that accusation is just ridiculous.
Yes, for every imaginable abuse, there probably is someone somewhere in this world who has done it. But this allegation is so ridiculous, because it is so specific. I mean if someone wants to rape a dog, they'll probably just use some rope or so to tie them up. Unfortunately there are some images and videos of that, and fortunately they sometimes have been used as evidence in animal abuse cases. But as far as I know nobody has ever seen videos or images of abusive bestiality porn including a breeding stand, nor has it ever come up in any bestiality court case. The point is: If they are really concerned about dogs being forced into sex with breeding stands, then a much more obvious target would be the dog breeders who are confirmed to actually use them. Several videos of that can even be found on youtube...
No, it´s more like watching a retard getting out his shlong and pissing at the bully´s shin...public distribution of animal porn includes choosing pictures showing human-animal copulation and animal genitalia in a distinctively sexual manner as your profile pic. I don´t care what mental capability somene has, but you don´t write your nasty stuff on a flag and wave it around in public. The "treatment" those idiots receive is well deserved in my opinion. I do not hold any empathy for "members" of our community who abuse zoophilia for its shocking effect, openly seeking out fights with OpBeast by publishing/distributing porn via Twitter and FB.
I also wonder what the animals can expect from someone who demonstartes his/her total lack of reaction anticipating capability....what does it tell us about you if you feel the need to show off your little pervo phantasies via Facebook and Twitter? How responsible can someone act when he/she risks huge problems for basically nothing than stupidly dealing out selfish shock effects to annoy others? And don´t you dare to tell me that doing shit like this is fighting for "zoo rights"...
I never said it was fighting for zoo rights. I did say they were retarded. Kinda the opposite, really.
I still can't help but feel empathy for someone who's life is totally destroyed, even if they "asked for it." shrugs
<paraphrase> anyone "stupid" enough to get caught deserves whatever they get </paraphrase>
Your compassion is admirable :/
insert generic apologetic sermon for fencehoppers and animal pornographers here....oooh, I see you just did that...
Point to me where I did that. Go on, I'll wait. I'm fucking dying to see you pull your head out of your ass long enough to put those words in my mouth.
\*waits patiently\*
"Kept you waiting,huh?" (quote of some rather unknown videogame hero) ;)
Fact: in almost (if not in any) any case people got into trouble with authorities, publishing, distributing or recording animal porn and/or animal prostitution and/or fencehopping was involved. I frequently scan the internet for new articles of caught "zoophiles", but until yet never came across someone accused of "zoophilia" who behaved according to the zeta rules (the original ones, not the ZETA rules). All accused ones had their fair share of handing out evidence themselves before they got caught. So, you basically demand compassion for animal pornographers and fencehoppers. In 99,99% of the cases, it´s them who are caught.
If someone intentionally runs over a red light and crashes his car into another car, then my compassion´s priority is helping the person who was injured by the selfish and irresponsible behavior of the one running over the red light because he felt it below his dignity to wait a few minutes.
If you came into my home and took a swing/kich against my furniture, making my entire room collapse, my natural reaction would be yelling at you idiot; the one thing I couldn´t care less is if you injured your hand/leg when you started "furniture domino day".
I can be compassionate with fellow zoos; if a zoo is caught by accident , without making him-/herself a target by acting irresponsible (making and uploading porn,fencehopping, joining "animal sex clubs", online advertizing, etc.), then my solidarity is unlimited. But in reality, such a responsible person never was caught...at least, not to my knowledge.
You expect my compassion for those who get caught. People only get caught when they act like retards and post porn that can be traced back to them (showing face, showing specific tattoos, identifiable fur pattern, giving out real names of humans and animals...), used online hook up sites (craigslist,beastforum et al.)known to be regularly scanned by police or are caught in the act on another one´s land, with another one´s animal(s). It is true that I don´t give a flying fuck about those folks...whenever someone of them is caught, I instinctively focus on the damage these people do to our public image and our chances to gain tolerance someday instead of giving in to some sort of jesus complex, demanding compassion for people who basically screwed up their lives themselves...and also the lives of many responsible zoos with the top priority of keeping their privacy. The more idiots make it to the news, the more likely "that stange guy living alone with his mare abroad" will be questioned..."Martha, I just read about some perverts called zoophiles. They fuck animals, can you imagine that?Hmmm, now I really wonder what that guy living alone with his mare who shows no interest in humans at all is up to ...let´s go spy on him a little bit"
"Who would have thought?"....ahem, I would´ve... We Germans will face the 3rd anniversary of having "anti zoo laws" in about one month, yet nobody has been sentenced for having sex with animals alone. There´s always another violation of the law that gets you in trouble, like making and distributing animal porn.
For any genuine zoo protecting the privacy of him-/herself and his/her animal, these laws are ineffective and can be seen as lame ducks; the installment of these laws always was solely for the "feelgood" effect of society. " Yeah, we know we cannot do a fuckin´ thing when zoos keep a low profile, but at least we can say that it´s forbidden, so nobody can accuse us of being a safehaven for animal fuckers."
So there have been prosecutions for combined violations? Details?
Mostly it´s about distribution of animal pornography, as in the case of one guy from Verl who was proven to advertize his dog(s) online for making animal porn .The trial is still running, sadly there´s no other coverage of this than that on anti homepages. You can get an impression by visiting carsten thierfelder´s homepage (German language only...if you dare to call Thierfelder´s babble "German" ;) ).
Some other trials will follow, as Thierfelder writes, mainly for the distribution of animal pornography...we´ll see what the future brings.
I mean who would have thought that an MP would not only revisit the law, but also admit their mistakes?
For germany I have only seen some paper by someone from Die Linke on the Thieme Verlag who came to the conclusion that the (supposed) ban in germany didn't improve anything and was unnecessary. But that paper seems to have vanished. At least I can't find it anymore.
To be honest with you, I guess that most of the politicians involved in creating the new laws are aware of the fact that the law changed nothing. But it was necessary to create that law...surely not for obvious reasons like preventing unnecessary animal abuse, but for reasons residing on the meta level. I do believe that installment of the new law has discouraged some wanna-try-outs, has sent out a message and has had some (unwanted) effects of activating the community. As I said many times before: this law NEVER aimed at the genuine zoos who value their privacy higher than "becoming the fetish scene´s next animal porn star". I do believe that it´s not zoophilia itself that made actions necessary, but the ever increasing amount of AP out there that´s easily accessible by anyone. The government needed to lauch some signal to let everyone out there lusting for animals know that our world isn´t a playground you can do whatever you like without having to face some consequences. If you act responsibly and with respect for the animals, you weren´t on their target list.
It´s a common platitude, but politicians are not per se stupid. They also can use their brains...
Over the last few years, I've been increasingly feeling that democracy is just theatrics to keep the public happy while the politicians try to do some mixture of real work, personal enrichment, and advancing their own beliefs.
It's the only explanation I have for a different legal issue, the way drugs are treated in the UK. Half the population have tried an illegal substance, yet the idea of liberalisation is unthinkable even though enforcement would bankrupt us.
Deep down in my heart, I´m an anarchist, an anarchist who is familiar with Kropotkin´s and Bakunin´s theories and ideas. But over the years living in capitalism, or in two forms of capitalism (form 1: before the iron curtain fell and the West needed to pretend it was better than those russkies and form 2, the uninhibited hardcore capitalism), I have abandoned anarchism. It simply isn´t working with a population that´s so corrupted by money and consumerism like ours today. greed, egoism, narcicisstic consumerism, the inner void (Quote Marilyn Manson: "There´s a hole in our soul that we fill with dope...and we´re feeling fine")... well, this kind of people needs guidance of some sort. Democracy provides this guidance without applying too much of pressure or restraint. It´s a sad fact that the so called homo sapiens (wise man)hasn´t found a system yet that ensures the maximum of personal freedom but avoids the mistake of encouraging selfishness beyond an amount that is dangerous and harmful to others, animals and the planet. Democracy isn´t the better of two evils, it is the best of all evils mankind has invented yet. Legalisation of soft drugs? Count me in. But there are some incidents I witnessed that keep me from just pouring out weed onto the streets without any limitation or safety consideration. In the beginning of the nineties, I visited Amsterdam often, the ones who behaved the worst by far were Americans who weren´t used to the high effectiveness of dutch weed. Seen some USAnians running naked over Leidesplein, then "visiting" the Oude Kerk, also naked...
As an anarchist, I know that my freedom ends where the freedom of others starts...keeping the balance between these two is extremely difficult. With a population that has been taught the only thing counting is their "personal freedom" for decades now, I heavily doubt that mankind of today is fit for the next evolutionary step and this form of democracy we have now is probably the best way to grant freedom while also defending us from utter chaos of egoism unleashed.
If foreigners desperate to try "stuff" have a tendency to be anti-social in places where that "stuff" is legal (or at least tolerated), that's consistent with some of the stated reasons for the ban in Germany and Denmark. I was going to write "Nobody really wants a sex tourist, that's just creepy.", but then I remembered how different British sex toy shops (opaque windows and airlock-style doors) are from German ones (rotating billboards for dildoking.de in Berlin, the entire length of the red light district of Frankfurt being visible from the train station), and now I'm just not sure what cultures other than my own find creepy.
Didn't germany's supreme court/whatever you call it rule that the law only applies if an animal is forced to do something "akin to physical force?" That's kinda telling.
Of course, Zeta-verein is where I got this, and they may be spinning things.
Yes it did. And that contradicted the original reasoning for the law:
"The government acknowledges the fact that sexual acts with animals committed by humans is likely (not really sure how to translate that) to regularly inflict at least suffering in the sense of the animal welfare law, because hereby they are forced into not species appropriate behavior."
I wonder what a court would do with that in an actual case.
The situation German zoos are in at the moment is kind of Janus-headed. On on hand, we have government comments like the one cited by fuzzyfurry. On the other hand, we have this comment from the BVerFG/supreme court that seems to keep a teeny tiny little loophole open for us zoos. Don´t rely on ZETA´s announcement that "zoophilia is legal in Germany"...that is only what ZETA assumes. We will only know about the actual legal situation when the first trial takes place, with someone who is accused of "zoophilia"/ having non harmful sex with an animal ONLY, without other accusations of animal porn distribution etc.
I´ve lived most of my zoo life before the new law was introduced; technically, having sex with an animal was legal before 2013. But even without a law aiming directly at interspecies sex, courts punished people for it...there weren´t many trials, but you were far from being safe from persecution back then.
In the end, it all boils down to the simple question of applicability of the law. When zoos don´t hand out evidence themselves, it is hard to prove you had sex with your animal. The only method that could be suitable for gathering relevant evidence would be collecting DNA samples from your animals or from you. Since having sex with animals is only a minor offense, you have the right to deny any cooperation with authorities. If a zoo in Germany is paying enough attention to his/her privacy and stays under the radar, it really doesn´t matter if there is or isn´t a law. I simply can´t understand why attacking this law is so important to some...lock the bedroom/ barn door, don´t publish photos or films, stay away from "zoo meetings" and you´ll be good.
It's important to some on principle. Fact is, it wasn't needed, and was nothing more than a direct attack on a people. Whether or not that effects our day to day life, that fact remains. Personally, it is not a big concern of mine, I recognize we are unpopular and accept that. But I can understand why some idealist zoos would be upset by this...
Unless the government actively seeks out zoophiles, I wouldn't worry about it. There is a clear case against a law like this: eating meat. Killing an animal to eat it clearly harms the animal.
But, here's the thing. Most of the general public is stupid. There are quite a few conservative candidates in the US that use it to rile up constituents.
Most would not harm animals, but there are some that cause problems (sharing animals, underage porn). We may have to police our community, because no one else will (in a fair way).
Read last sentence....baffled How it comes that truth prevails all of a sudden? ;)
You seem to think implying that we need to police our community means we agree with YOUR way of policing it. I for one, agree with that statement while mostly disagreeing with your views on policing it.
That gave me a particular train of thought. Most communities are full of people who disagree about the specifics of policing while also agreeing that some sort of policing is good.
Unfortunately, the nature of our community prevents any of the usual mechanisms. We can't use democracy because democracy requires identity to prevent ballot stuffing and nobody sane would risk being outed in a hack-leak, there's no way to enforce a dictatorship because people can just go to other websites. (Counting "zoo-ness" as the community rather than /r/zoophilia/, because moderators obviously hold absolute power and we let them because we like it here).
Policing is a hard thing for me to talk about.
I got in trouble for saying openly I would basically turn in a zoo if I knew he was an animal abuser. Days after that comment, I was banned from all zoo forums at the time save knotty.me, which was just getting it's starting members. I was spared there largely because no one there cared about that crap.
I still feel repricussions from that statement, and am still "ban on sight" at zoophilesforum.com, for example.
It's a touchy issue, to say the least. And there ARE zoos who will argue you can't touch any zoophile at all. Makes policing hard.
Hey, you shouldn´t feel guilty for DOING THE RIGHT THING. It´s not your fault that these forums give a fuck about morality and true zoophilia, it´s theirs. If someone is an animal abuser, then I don´t fucking care if he´s a zoo, a one legged bulgarian opera singer, a twodicked alien from space or whatever...this guy needs a nice and clean visit from police...or myself...with the first being the much less painful alternative.
Those "zoos" saying that any zoo is untouchable just because he´s a zoo aren´t real zoos themselves... genuine zoophiles ALWAYS place the wellbeing of animals before human interests.
You definitely should not feel guilty at all...sometimes being thrown out is a proof that you are on the right track. I was thrown out of Beastforum with my first account for no other reason than disturbing their cashflow by pointing out the same things as I do here...Southflorida just sent me an email with this: "I don´t think you fit in here". Sometimes being thrown out isn´t a failure...not at all.
Did I say I felt guilty?
No. Rather I cussed them up and down the hall in a rather heated PM, partially due to genuine moral outrage, partially due to just being pissed off at the betrayal when I needed the community the most (I had just lost my lover).
I handled it poorly, yes. But I do not regret my actions nor my statements.
And sadly, I would qualify the individuals as zoos 30-30, which muddies things. I know enough about them to know they love their animals and just put way too much credence in the "those in glass houses should not throw stones" sayings. Maybe they aren't "true zoos" but zoos they are, at least by the modern definition. It's problematic.
If I didn´t know better, I could get the notion someone fell in love with me here answering to almost every single one of my comments...;) You may not believe it, but I am surprised that the simple idea of policing the scene isn´t widely refused anymore. I do not claim that my views on policing are the only ones suitable. But until today, even mentioning the need to police our community created an instant shitstorm; "intolerant asshole", " prudish dick" and "bible brainwashed conservative fascist" are just the more harmless insults I had to endure. Admitting that something needs to be done is a huge step forward; and I say this without any irony and mockery. We can debate about what behavior needs to be discouraged, but IMHO we can´t debate that we need to clean up our turf, establish a strict and binding code of conduct that expells anyone immediately from our community who´s not acting accordingly to it and also punish it if the expelled perpetrator dares to use the z-word to describe him-/herself.
Zoophilia has to become a "trademark"; and like with a trademark, any unlegitimate usage of that trademark must be punished in one way or another, either by court or by direct action.
I don't think what you're suggesting is possible. But I'm going to think about it for a bit and see if I can either prove it impossible or construct an workable model.
You just hit all the right chords with me I guess, 30-30. Particularly because I both agree and disagree with you on many very intensely emotional points. It makes it a complex relationship to say the least... lol.
Never get me wrong. I respect what you are trying to do. I just don't think wasting energy fighting defintions that already are established as that is a battle you simply cannot win. Maybe it's time we invented a new term, I just have no idea what that should be.
I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm actually quite skeptical of anyone who claims to have the answers by nature. Please don't take it as disrespect for your person. It's anything but.
There was a time not so long ago I thought about establishing a new message board rooted in the "zeta principles" as you'd call it. I even had some moderators lined up to work with me... But it never panned out. See, I agree with the need to redefine ourselves, I think it's priority #1. Here's my main points of contention with you:
1.) I don't think we need to throw other groups "under the bus" to do it, just point out that we are different from them should be enough.
2.) I don't agree with the term we should use. "Zoophile" is tainted beyond repair... it's to the point where it basically means a sexual attraction to animals and nothing more. That may not be where it started, but that's where it is. That's my assessment, but those are only my views and are as imperfect as any.
Agreed. Despite the best efforts of Wiccans for the last 62 years, the word "witch" still means "malevolent green skinned warty-nosed old woman" to most people.
A binding code of conduct requires one of:
Punishing expelled people who call themselves zoos requires:
The trademark idea's a good one, my skepticism was because I was thinking too much in terms of online communities and identity. According to Wikipedia, Scientology is a registered trademark, as is the symbol for Scientology. If they can do it, we can do it. If we had enough money and someone was willing to both spend it on registering the trademarks and going to court to fight all the legal battles (and there would be a lot, as trademarks are easily lost).
I don't think we need to outright trademark it as much as establish our own branding in a counter-propaganda campaign. But that's just my feelings.
We'd have no power (that I know of) to enforce the brand if it wasn't trademarked.
That said, I don't get the impression we've got enough rich skilled lawyers for trademarking to be a good use of our time and effort.
No, I'm not speaking legally. I am speaking in terms of peer pressure. And as I have said, it's probably better to dump the existing terms alltogether, and enforce a new one. Less social opposition that way.
I see, peer pressure. I'm skeptical that peer pressure would work for us, but I agree about needing a new word.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/05/11/animal-cruelty-bill-runs-into-commons-buzz-saw-government-indifference-walkom.html
The only reason the law was passed was to make the rest of the world shut up and stop insinuating that all Danes fuck animals. It's the same way in Norway and Sweden, there's a law on the books but unless you trespass, abuse or rape animals you have very little to worry about. It sucks that it has to be this way, but at least you no longer get stoned to death for loving your pets too much in most parts of the world.
I've been to the vet with my sexually active dog lots of times for check ups and treating allergies. I don't know if the vet has ever suspected anything, but my dog is so happy, friendly and loving that it's most likely the last thing on their mind.
[deleted]
I think animals should be protected from rape and such like we protect people but we should criminalize people that are very clearly abusing a dog or horse or cow etcetera.
Hope you guys liked my post :)