On December 19th 2016, Ohio's governor signed a bill criminalizing all sex with animals in Ohio; that new law is supposed to go into effect in February. On January 1st 2017, a new unjust law banning sex with animals went into effect in New Hampshire; now anyone caught having sex with an animal in New Hampshire will be charged with a misdemeanor (felony for 2nd time caught), have their animal lover taken from them, and be permanently put on the New Hampshire sex offender registry.
Also, on January 5th 2017, a new bill was introduced in Kentucky which would make having sex with a dog a felony. (It is House Bill 143). Only "pets" are covered by the bill.
These laws are discriminatory; things keep getting worse. There used to be many U.S. states that did not have anti-zoo laws, and now that number is very small. Recently, MANY jurisdictions around the world, including Denmark and Brazil, have made oppressive new anti-zoosexual laws. How can this trend be stopped?
It won't be stopped.
I know the current situation looks hopeless, but there must be something zoos can do. In your opinion, how should zoosexual people deal with the current hostile anti-zoo environment?
(i.e. the current oppression, discrimination and stigmatization of zoos).
Dont tell everyone that you really really love your dog? Twenty years ago homosexuality was still a serious taboo in states other than California. It took 45 years after the Stonewall Riots for homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.
The other issue us based on consent. Legally an animal cannot give consent and are on the same level as a minor child or a mentally retarded adult, however a pet is merely "property" in most states. I could go out back and put a bullet between the eyes of a dog and not a single state government would bat an eye, but if sex organs are involved you are publically shamed and financially fucked for the rest of your life. Having sex with an animal gains you a modern day scarlett letter.
It is a fight that you and I will never win. The governmet essentially is telling you to get back in the closet.
Others can tell that they really really love their human partners.
So we should be able to too.
Note the word 'legally.'
They can give consent, but according to the law they can't.
Hint: It's more important what is actually true, not what lazy laws say.
No they aren't.
I'm not sure if I can take people like this seriously.
Is using that 'animals=child/mentally retarded human' argument actually some kind of meme? Because it seems like a joke, overused and still unfunny.
You can't just tell people to 'deal with it.'
I'm not getting abused by this and treated like shit because people lack some basic intelligence about this subject.
Oh wait a sec, it's not their problem, right?
Don't even spend time understanding.
Put a 'wrong' sticker on it and only a small amount of people will complain, but if they even dare say something, we'll lock 'em up, and if that doesn't work, it's not like they have a life anymore anyways, the normal people'll take care of 'em.
That's how it goes these days, right?
As you said, the "legal informed consent" argument doesn't make sense; why is an animal's consent not needed when an animal is slaughtered/butchered, or when it is spayed/neutered, or when it is hunted, but IS needed when someone has sex with an animal? That is a type of legal hypocrisy. And some of those things could be viewed as being far worse (to an animal's welfare) than sex with one.
And as you said, animals are not equivalent to disabled people; for example, disabled people aren't put in kennels, and they're not spayed/neutered. Sex is not "important" to non-human animals the way it is to humans.
Ehm, that was not what I meant.
That's like saying 'Ayyy we'll fuck these beasts anyways, worse happens to 'em!'
That's a dumb thing to say, because that would imply bestiality is still harmful, which it isn't.
I'm saying that they can't give legally consent, while it should be.
Animals can give consent to sex, except because the law is wrong and says they can't. This doesn't mean you have to follow the law like a sheep.
Although I agree on that hypocrisy thing.
No.
It's got to do with intelligence, NOT what happens to them!
Animals don't think equally like a child.
One of the biggest differences is:
(adult) animals: sexually mature.
human child: NOT sexually mature.
The child = animal thing is really dumb.
I agree with the things you've said.
And I would add, that (in my opinion) sex with animals is not harmful, and slaughter is.
Yeah, this is the whole infuriating paradox here.
I think that taking an approach based on property rights makes so much more sense than taking one based on animal rights. Animals are just furniture that breathes as far as the law is concerned in many places, the notion that a dog does not deserve much more rights than my sofa is already running rampant in the wild. By defending property rights, you could defend that you can do whatever you want with your dogs just the same way the butcher can do with his animals, because animals are just property, and people can use their property as they see fit.
The problem there is twofold. First of all, property rights are not well respected everywhere. On the other hand, most zoos will regard such approach as a disgusting thing to do, because animals are much more than an armchair.
Buddy this is still something that most people find extremely disturbing and disgusting so forcing them to know you do it will not help.
I was not talking about forcing anybody to know anything. I was talkign about shifting the sort of arguments that are used all around.
That's the thing, this is not a discussion people want to have yet, so arguing about it will make it worse
The "animal rights" argument could be made but you slide quickly into dialogue over whether pet ownership itself violates animal rights, so it rapidly becomes mired in subjectivity. I agree it should be avoided.
It is 100% completely not a consent issue in real life. Yes, it is frequently stated by the other side, but the inapplicability of human-type legal consent has been proven through sound logic time and time again, even by unbiased normals.
Animal-type consent is what is applicable to animals, and frankly the extent to which most humans even consider this important is very selectively applied. Nobody would question whether an animal provides legal human-style consent to eat a certain type of food, to be rubbed between the ears, or for that matter to be involved in a breeding program. All the more so in the wild between two animals.
Communicating this to people in a friendly manner is of course another whole subject.
You aren´t a practitioner, right? Only a fantasizer can wield negative buzz words like this, Zqwm7. I don´t like being victimised, neither from society, nor from YOU. I´m not oppressed, not discriminated against and not stigmatised. Cease your ridiculous crusade now.
When all I have to do to be safe is to shut the fuck up and not be the exhibitionistic dickwad special snowflake like some of the "proud zoophiles" are, I´m happy to pay for my freedom to live my orientation with silence. Nothing comes for free.
Your onesided portrayal sucks balls bigly and is equally annoying as one of those brainwashed anti zoo slogan zombies´ perma-rants. I´m sick of it...honestly, cut it out.
Your attitude isn´t beneficial at all, all this victimisation and exaggeration. What this can lead to has been impressively demonstrated by ZETA-Verein. They took one of those yellow David´s stars Jews were forced to pin to their clothes in public and added a zeta in the middle. Comparing the current situation zoophiles have to get along with to the holocaust...that´s where you´ll end too when you don´t drop this totally twisted attitude, Zqwm7.
I kind of don't want to get between you guys, but since you bring it up, could you help explain why you don't see such laws as oppressive, discriminatory, or stigmatizing?
Oppressive: Such laws are by definition unjust; institutionalizing them via authority is exactly what oppression is.
Discriminatory: Such laws address the activity categorically rather than considering each scenario on its individual merits.
Stigmatizing: Certainly such laws by way of their existence and origin in eww-factor institutionalize a sense of "stigma" (public disgrace) about such activities.
Why aren´t these laws o,d and s? Pretty simple, because they are ineffective when privacy is your top priority. These laws are, as a German animal activism critic once put it, a toothless tiger.
The ones getting in trouble got into trouble by themselves. Stay away from AP (making, sharing/distributing/consuming), don´t harass your surroundings with what "gets you goin´", make sure you exclude any accidental form of exposure , keep your jizzy fingers off other people´s animals and you´ll never have to care about these laws.
Before I forget: please note that I´m talking about my own country´s laws. In Germany, getting caught with an animal is a misdemeanor, not a felony. It is fined up to 25 K Euros, but in reality, 350 - 1000 Euros of fine, depending on the details of the case, is a more accurate estimation. You´re not going into jail for that. The new law was issued july 2013...until this very day, I haven´t seen one single case of "zoophilia" law violation in German courts. When there was a trial because of "zoophilia", it always included additional offenses like making and distributing animal pornography.
Three and a half years after the anti zoo law became effective, not a single case of "pure zoophilia".
I don´t feel oppressed because at no point in my zoo "carreer", I had the notion of being "oppressed" although I had to deal with public stables and the risks it involves when literally dozens of people can accidentally walk in on you. With a few exceptions, I always could lead the relationship with my mare the way we both wanted. Sure, every now and then, we had to deal with the minor disappointment of not being able to do the "six legged equine" ;) when we wanted because too many others were present. But that´s not "oppression" for me.
I don´t feel discriminated against. The law is ineffective when you focus on safety and don´t possess the overwhelmingly blown up vanity of feeling urged to tell the entire world who you prefer to have coitus with. From my perspective, the "unjust" laws are just to some extend. I understand that the lawmakers, as almost any other outsider, don´t want and also don´t have to go in depth into our scene and its blurry or nonexistent separation between bestiality and zoophilia. Without laws explicitly prohibiting interspecies sexual contact, with so called "legal zoophilia", a fencehopper will only be charged with trespassing. A few bucks of fine and he can return to another pasture the very same night. Is that what we want?
I don´t feel threatened by the law, I also see there is a reasonable cause to issue such laws. You may say that these laws are generalised and thus unjust, but let me ask you whether you really expect the lawmakers to make the distinction between beast and zoo when our very own community can´t even agree on that itself?
It´s undeniable the "tone" of our community, the public image has changed over the years. Once a small minority almost completely separated from the "normals", our worldwide community today consists largely of what I call invaders. So called "zoo voyeurs" and sexually bored/adventurous folks who may never have developed that dubious habits without the advertising effect sites like BF definitely have.
The government has the right and the duty to react to dangerous developments of society. Silke Lautenschläger, the first politician who started to work for an "anti zoo" law, once said that "zoophilia once was a very rare behaviour, with a few, isolated practicioners. Their effects on society were zero, zilch, nada. But what once was tolerable has mutated into what she called " a modern internet sex cult closely connected to the illegal porn mafia" and I have to agree with her on that. Our entire scene defintely has become more heartless, more sex-focused, more egocentric/anthropocentric. The veterans of the 90´s will surely affirm that, things have changed since the internet became everyday business for everybody.
I know a large portion of the "discrimination" we face is just and correct. I surely realise that these laws can also have dire consequences for my mare and myself, but given the choice between "totally legal zoo, but animals pay with pain and distress for my freedom because the evildoers get away with too cheap" and "have to endure a managable risk/danger my entire life, but evildoers get what they deserve and animals are protected as good as possible", I´d not hesitate to choose the latter. I LOVE horses and the image that only one, ONE single horse has to go through shit because "muh´ freehd´m!" is sickening. I´d be happy to abstain from "legal zoophilia" when the wellbeing of all animals depends on it. Zeta rule number One: The Animal Always Comes First. When I was in my puberty, I thought exactly like you and blamed society although the circumstances weren´t even close to those of today and zoophilia technically legal. I participated in society shaming..blah,blah, "unjust" , "intolerant" etc. pp.
Then, I realised that we zoos aren´t the center of the world. I realised that it was privilege, not equality those "activists" demand. How little they were ready for compromises. How selfish this "legalise zoophilia" BS really is. I said to me that, if you want to be included into the "normal" society, you also have to include them into your own views and beliefs, too". I understood how and why we failed, over and over again.Then, I swore to myself I won´t waste anymore energy on complaining and whining about "unjust" society and redirect it to what´s exponentially more important, my mare´s and my safety. I understand why the tsunami of anti "zoo" laws were necessary and don´t complain about them. I understand government´s concern about what is growing right in front of our eyes and I can see why no lawmaker wanted to achieve detailed insight into our community and orientation. If you like it or not, we´re "trauma material" for 90% of society. When coming out to one of my friends, a studied psychologist, he reassured me on that by saying "Because of you, I cannot see a horse anymore and NOT think of you and your special orientation"
Illegalising weed isn´t discriminatory. There are valid reasons to keep it away from some individuals unfit for usage. But that´s not discrimination. It IS discriminatory that , anytime I´m pulled over by the fuzz, they get the drug test when they see my dreads.
For the last "quality", stigmatisation. Yeah, I feel stigmatised somehow. Mainly because we true zoos get stuffed into the same drawer as the worst variant of a beasty.Again, I don´t blame the lawmakers for that, it´s mainly our own fault, failing in keeping a healthy distance to the beasties, not outright fraternising with them. If we can´t even say "Guy 1 is a zoo, guy 2 is a beasty" without plethora of other definitions thrown in, challenging any attempt to install some moral basics, how should society know we´re NOT all the same?
As a practicing zoophile for more than 25 years, I can only say the complaints are exaggerated, overdramatised and totally off proportions when you aren´t blind to reality. Enumclaw in 2005, weekly appearances of another fencehopper caught, the likely discovery of kiddie porn in seized "animal porn enthusiasts´" computers....what is it you expect from society and government? Don´t blame them for their reactions, blame us for acting in a way that made these kinds of reactions inavoidable. It´s like punching yourself in the groin and complaining about others laughing...
I enjoyed your response and I do understand where you are coming from. But you (and /u/AmoreBestia) seem to be citing your own feelings and experience, rather than something objective, to justify blanket statements shrugging off the seriousness of such laws to all people.
There will always be dolphin lovers, people who made dumb mistakes five years ago, people in feuds with neighbors, who knows. Silently supporting ammunition to unjustly prosecute them should not be justified by the statement that, "the chance of harm TO ME is low."
As to harm to animals, I don't see that "evildoers" get off cheap without such laws. If someone causes harm to an animal, there are already abuse laws. Trespassers can be dealt with. Harsher laws could be created which only the owner can exercise, under the auspices of disturbing one's pets/livestock. In some areas, these laws already exist.
Veterans of the '90s will recall that porn was circulating widely back then. Like all digital media, it is more prolific and more accessible now, because storage is cheaper, anonymity and e-commerce is easier to come by, and more people know how to use a computer to get to a remote site. I am very skeptical it's because of any cultural shift, although I do agree that there are more eyeroll-causing people in the fringes.
...and contrived, needlessly specific laws are a challenge to exactly that, which is why I'm surprised people with your perspective are not more alarmed.
Where did I blame or shame society? Rather, I said that such laws were unjust, unnecessary, and harmful (and theorized that they fit the dictionary definitions as shown above).
"The animal" in that quote is not an arbitrary animal out of your control, so this point is out of context, but let's say it will be comforting to the people getting raped in jail after doing nothing wrong that a hypothetical animal was protected from a hypothetical real crime.
What in your opinion comes second, witch hunt laws, or a loving owner?
The sun exploding is something we need to consider, but focusing on stopping the sun from exploding right now is something best left for the future. It's not about brushing it off, it's about taking on priorities that are more functional when they preempt it. The sun can wait for our technology to advance and scale up. In that same vein, zoos can weather these laws for the time it takes to sway public opinion; getting rid of the law first just aggravates the anti-zoo crowd and makes it harder to get rid of the law in the future. Better to deal with the crowd then the law. Hell, if we do a good enough job, that law will be overturned for you.
I'm not sure if your choice of a deliberately ridiculous comparison is meant to validate my point or insult me, but from topics in the past here I hoped for a bit higher-quality exchange of ideas.
I never suggested avoidance of dealing with the crowd, in fact quite the opposite. My complaint is with people who use this logic ("it's unlikely to impact me, therefore it won't impact anyone") to justify why burying one's head in the sand is the best solution.
I think the sun exploding is a valid concern, the same way I think this legislature is a valid concern. It may be extremely distant, but the legacy of earth life being limited to the lifetime of the proverbial hourglass in the sky is still something to consider. If the remainder of our time in the Sol system is spent dawdling, every last remnant of us will be vaporized... But we haven't the means to approach it yet. If we were to try to stop the sun from exploding right now, we'd get nowhere. We don't have the technology or expertise to handle something of that scale, so what should we do instead of trying to stop the sun from exploding? Advance technology, and then when our technology reaches a sufficient point, shift our focus back to the sun. It's not just an example; it's an analogy. If we throw shit at the sun right now, our efforts will go up in flames. Same with this legislature. We need sufficient resources to accomplish a change in legislature and maintain it. That means developing our technology(refining our approach to it) and amassing resources(garnering support from the masses).
I never said you did, I'm saying that we need to focus on following a natural progression. Changing the law, then the people, is not a natural progression. 30-30 was making the 'it won't impact anyone' assertion. Mine was that it's not going to be rampant enough to be a risk that should supercede the priority of the masses. Sometimes you have to accept potential losses in the short term for long term gain. This is one of those times.
It seems like this deliberation has upset you a bit, as well. It may be prudent to take a break and revisit this conversation at a later date.
I'm not upset, I'm speculating on why you're pursuing the dialog in the way that you are.
My original statement was that such laws are worrisome and unjust, and it's wrong to dismiss people's concerns based on the argument "it's unlikely to affect most people." This was clearly your position earlier ("...this kind of legisla[tion] is for show. How often does someone get funky with...").
If you are now saying that you acknowledge the risk to some people but those casualties are acceptable ("not rampant enough to be a risk that should supersede the priority of the masses"), that is another whole thread of discussion, and touches on priorities, which I never addressed.
Pardon, the intent was to make clear that the legislature was something we should have on the backburners from the start. I expected people to assume, from admittedly subtle nuance, that it was an issue of priority.
"I don´t see that "evildoers" get off cheap without such laws"...maybe opening your eyes might help on that one. Just recall the Espenau case I reported on in here. The guy who later was beaten into a coma was a known fencehopper in his "target" area, has been reported as a trespasser. Had contact with the fuzz several times, mostly for trespassing. Got a small fine he as the poor , unemloyed fella he is/was couldn´t pay, got released and started his next "adventure" literally the next night.
The fallacy you´re (as a large portion of our community in general) a victim of is basically the same as saying "We don´t need laws against weed, ´cause we already got laws against alcohol abuse".
Authorities were urged to do something about the internet animal fuck cult and it failed to surprise me that the sledgehammer method was chosen instead of the scalpel method. If you´re really into our community for so long, you also shouldn´t complain about the recent outcomes as you´ve witnessed how all has changed, compared to the more "innocent" nineties. My opinion remains: we need laws against "zoophilia" as a deterrence, as a moral statement and a warning to those who cannot deal with the responsibilities and duties of being a genuine zoo.
I also agree that animal porn already was "a thing" in the nineties, but you simply cannot deny that the quantities were not what they are today. You also have to admit that many of these so called old "zoo porn" flics can easily be identified as animal abuse from a today´s perspective. You simply cannot deny that things have changed "bigly" since then. Everything has become more vile, more violent, more self centered, the pornographisation of society has commenced undoubtedly. I completely resist the idea that our community consists entirely of ethic role models and "animal saints". Saying that all "zoos" are basically harmless is as delusional as saying that all of us are harmful animal rapists...the truth lies somewhere in between. This said, the government might have gone too far with the anti zoo laws, but gov isn´t that far off track as you like to portray it. We NEED regulations to eradicate certain forms of conduct that have an undeniable effect on entire society. After more than 25 years living with my orientation, I haven´t lost the ability to perceive myself, my community and my orientation with the eyes of an outsider and all I can say is that these laws haven´t fallen from the sky and we did our very own fair share to pave the way for these new laws with our indifference.
I don´t second your point that the laws equally endanger my mare and me as they endanger fencehoppers (who finally can be held accountable for more than just invading another individual´s property), the ones participating in making animal porn ( not only those who upload this crap and make a ton of money with it) and those among us who are quick to yell the z-word, but go into a total amnesia state when pants are unzipped. Total freedom is a tricky thing, you know. Most humans have proven to be incapable of dealing with such a gigantic responsibility, many become self indulged on the way , as total freedom is the same hard drug as power.
The laws surely are "a step too far", but don´t you see that this was caused by US, by the many "steps too far" our community has made? Normal folks don´t want to be exposed to us and our little "hobby"...politicians are normal people, too and surely not exactly willing to sort out things in details. I bet that the legislators who had to view lots of disturbing stuff in order to get expertise on "zoophilia" had their spit buckets right next beside them when debating the laws. Don´t you ever forget that your, our point of view, our familiarity with interspecies sexuality is NOT common sense in any way. Don´t complain about the laws, question yourself what exactly has made the introduction of such laws obligatory.
Your last paragraph is quite disturbing for me...do you really want me to comment on your obvious non-zoo approach here? Can you really sleep well with your "before one human has to suffer rape in jail, the animals should suffer" attitude? You´re also trying the usual con artist trick of "black vs. white" by hiding the fact that almost everyone who is incarcerated for "zoophilia" has been jailed for more than just having intercourse with his/her own animal in privacy. That´s one of the biggest lies our community is suffering from. Almost everyone jailed for "zoophilia" had been convicted of more than just that. Be it fencehopping, be it publishing or distributing "zoo" porn or any other vile form of conduct that has a definite effect on all of society, there always was more...
"Witch hunt laws"? Really? What a powerful example of complete bias you´re displaying here....maybe reading some books on medieval European and early American history might give a more accurate picture what a witch hunt really is than watching "The witch of Salem"...;)
Honestly, the law is a toothless tiger for those who cherish and protect their privacy. I´m pretty sure all the lawmakers know that a law won´t make a certain behaviour disappear overnight, in weeks or months...they know that their law won´t "end zoophilia". Lawmakers may be anti zoo, religious etc...but usually, they´re not complete morons. Our very own scene has driven them to installing laws, extreme conditions demand extreme consequences.
Hypothetical crimes? What? Our worldwide community of bestialists and zoophiles may be one of the most dumb ones ever existed...who else hands out undeniable evidence of his/her own crimes? Have you seen a website featuring tons of "successful dope deal" clips? Is there a public site featuring "best burglaries eva!"?
Every action leads to a reaction and if you can´t see the mechanisms behind that, then you´re lost or completely brainwashed by the "sex lib" agenda.
It really doesn´t take much to avoid contact with authorities for your entire life. How are THEY supposed to get a track of you when you abstain from handing out evidence yourself? What the fuck is wrong with this community? Don´t you see that this entire "out and proud zoo" gibberish, this urge to tell the world what you like to fuck, even expecting admiration and pats on your back while fucking some random stranger´s pet is nothing else but selfish and twisted vanity? What is it you expect from society, from a society that refuses to even think about fucking animals at all? Don´t you realise we´re trauma material for them? Is this entire "zoo rights" bullshit nothing else than clearly showing off how little you care for anybody but yourselves? If I want the right to sleep with my mare anytime we both want it, how it comes that granting others some right NOT to have to face us animal fuckers is so goddamn hard for you to see? Quid pro quo...but ,as it seems, we, the zoo community, don´t want to give up certain things and views in exchange for more tolerance. Can´t you see that exactly this kind of privilege, the claim to be rendered untouchable "because you´re a zoo" is poisoning the atmosphere? How can anybody still place his trust in outdated and worn out justifications when the last 20 years have proven their uneffectiveness? You all are so eager to find "enemies" within society, maybe for "simple weltbild" reasons, maybe for being the special snowflake "oppressed by society"...but it´s a fact we indeed are our own worst enemies.Stubbornness, unwillingness to find viable compromises with society and such...if you want true change, change yourself first.
Out of sequence, but:
... is pretty much my point. So if you agree here I'm not sure why further discussion is needed... but to hit a few of the key points:
No, it's the same as saying we don't need laws prohibiting all alcohol consumption because we already have laws against alcohol abuse. Which is true.
You're welcome to hold your opinion, but the fact remains that it affects good people and bad people equally. Both will be (by your logic) fine if they hide, both will be busted immediately if they are caught, whether or not there is any "love" or abuse evident. In fact I'd say it does more to deter good, honest people since they're the ones who care about what the law says in the first place.
Of course. I addressed the reasons for this in my prior response.
Again, while a fine data point to raise, your particular situation does not necessarily apply to anyone else, and therefore is not a good justification for sweeping policy.
Again, maybe for you. It depends on where you live, what you do, who you live around, who doesn't like you, how sophisticated and automated web scraping becomes in the future, and many other variables.
I never said anything about being "out and proud." But the supposition that you can do anything you want as long as the curtains are drawn and never expect to be caught is shortsighted at best. Nobody is perfectly isolated, as evidenced by the fact that here we all are, talking.
I agree with TokenHorseGuy. Laws specifically banning sex with animals are unnecessary. Those that don't treat animals well can be dealt with with other existing laws, as you (TokenHorseGuy) said. Anti-zoo laws, and those that make them, are part a witch hunt, as per the definition of "witch hunt" (dictionary.com) concerning the persecution of a minority. This is especially relevant when thinking about things such as Joe Arpaio's anti-zoo campaign in Arizona (he arrested zoos 11 times).
And I disagree with 30-30's idea that anti-zoo laws are good because they CAN stop bad zoos. That's like saying "let's ban all heterosexual sex because some heterosexual people are bad/rapists". Anti-zoo laws should be removed because they discriminate, and I mean that literally: they do not distinguish between what is abusive or not, because the law views zoosexual sex ITSELF as "abuse". And anti-zoo laws are not "toothless tigers", at least not in the United States, where it seems at least one person per week gets arrested for having sex with an animal.
Scientific studies would help. We all can speak on the behalf of zoophiles, highlight ways that the laws are irrelevant, petty, or making clear allowances in places where
greaterinjustices are freely committed, but at the end of the day, zoophiles lack authority. It won't be effective on everyone, but a statistically significant number of people will still reconsider as research is amassed that supports or is neutral to ethical sexual contact with nonhumans. At the end of the day, though, this kind of legislature is for show. How often does someone get funky with a nonhuman with the windows open and the curtains wide for everyone to watch? Suffice to say, the only people they'd catch are the ones that are crazy or dumb enough to flaunt it(And maybe the occasional person that needed to confide, unfortunately).I didn't want to say anything at first, but we've already, kinda... had word of these things posted on here. It doesn't hurt to revisit it though, I guess.
I agree with many of your points, but...
So if a law is difficult to enforce, does that mean people should just shrug it off and accept it, since it may as well not exist at all?
If nothing else, it indicates how toxic the environment is, that a bunch of lawmakers care enough about some extremely rare activity to illegalize it irrespective of whether it is harmful in any way.
Also it makes it easier to prosecute someone for a specific crime, which in many states is specifically more severe.
Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, beyond which you seem to be making some assumptions about the nonhumans involved.
And even in that specific case, as individual privacy continues to erode, things like windows or curtains become irrelevant against people who have enough dislike about you for any other reason to even suspect something.
Funny thing about what you responded to here; I initially penned it as "just for show" but decided against it for this very reason. Like you said, it speaks to the person who wrote it as well as the people that supported it, regardless of how effective they expect it to be. Getting it repealed won't solve the underlying issues, though, and it seems like it would be wasted effort at this point if the legal progression against zoophiles is anything to go by. Bestiality is something that people like to call icky once every few months then forget about until someone says "remember that icky thing called bestiality?" and the cycle repeats itself. It's used by politicians to look good and on voters to make them think they're gonna be dishing out justice at the ballot. It's pretty much free votes in most states.
Careful not to fall into fallacy fallacy, though. Fallacious reasoning can still be accurate, and given the most common nonhuman partners are canines, it's still quite possible to keep it discrete for most zoos, I feel.
This sentence was a little confusing in its phrasing to me, but I think a valid response is, as our current means of preserving privacy are eroded, new protections are made available in their place by the masses. Even in the face of a valid accusation of bestiality, assuming that the human caretaker has treated their nonhuman partner exceptionally and made sure there's no obvious evidence of the act from within or without, it's not likely to gain any traction. Even if a scenario like that is taken to court, a half competent defense would immediately crack down on a lack of actual evidence(and evidence of harm) and get it thrown out. It may be an issue in the future if surveillance advances, and the right to privacy is attacked in certain key areas, but I don't see it being a problem yet.
It will solve the problem of being accused/convicted of a life-derailing crime which considers a form of interaction "abuse" without any scientific basis or any consideration of context. Isn't that kinda important?
Okay... so is this where I say be careful not to fall into fallacy fallacy fallacy? :)
I'm actually not certain an argument with a formal fallacy CAN still be accurate, but logic taxonomy aside, my point is simply that "How often does ___ happen anyway?" is not a compelling reason to look the other way (the premise I read into it at the time).
The keyword is... kinda. Let's say it does get repealed, somehow. You still have an angry crowd of people that the next politician down the line can exploit and repeat the process with. It may be important in principle, but it's not a viable first goal. Legislature changes with the people; it's rarely the other way around.
Argumentum ad populum; "Everybody believes that being decapitated will kill you, therefore decapitation must kill you". The reasoning isn't entirely sound, but the conclusion is accurate, barring any nitpicking like "well technically it's oxygen deprivation and lack of blood flow". It's not about looking the other way so much as looking closer to the root. Just clipping the stem of a dandelion isn't going to get rid of it.
I don't recall referring to it as a "first goal." Only that it is worth more than the dismissive brush-off that people here seem to give it, for whatever inscrutable reason.
Case in point, the stem of a dandelion isn't a threat to the freedom of people doing nothing wrong.
It is if they have allergies. c;
:)
It can be stopped if zoos would educate the public and start some activism.
Many zoos are too afraid to become activists because they fear that that would make them targets for persecution, or prosecution, and would be too risky (to them). Perhaps it would be easier if a non-zoo were to fight for zoo rights. (For example, scientists or civil liberties people).
Anyone who does choose to do so will have to fight against anti-zoo misinformation, such as what is contained in this petition:
http://www.change.org/p/petition-federal-definition-of-bestiality-as-obscene-and-federal-crime
See that just creates an chicken-and-egg problem there.
To be honest, I don't think people in general take change.org all that seriously.
That is a very naive statement at best. In Germany, an openly pro zoo official organisation exists , is trying to teach the public since 2009 and still has no effect or influence on society. Both of your points checked (public education and activism), still no change for the better.
If activism includes teaching the wrong things to the public like ZETA, said official orga, does, if this activism consists of empty and vain sermon, if the activists don´t practice what they preach, this "in ya face" attitude will most def backfire...just ask ZETA.
You´re completely wrong when you think there´s an easy solution like "1,2,3" . There isn´t. What do you think we tried in the last twenty to twentyfive years? We taught public and we did it way more consistently than it is done today. We tested several tactics to convince people we´re not nutjob animal rapists and you know where every tactic failed? When the person you "educate about zoophilia" flings out his smartphone, does a quick google search and waves his phone in front of your nose, showing you article after article about fencehoppers, caught animal porn distributors and cringeworthy ZETA quotes. I really hope all of you run into such a person in your life, at least for once....one experience like this can rapidly force you to get your feet back on the ground, I guarantee it.
Timing also is essential. Activism and education won´t work when the time´s not right. In the eighties and nineties, there was a small window that would have allowed us to get our foot in the door and we actually did that. I can only repeat it over and over... we even managed to get this on TV without creating a shitstorm as aftermath long before Jerry Springer and his infamous, never aired episode featuring George Willard.
Today, with all the negative excesses going on in the name of the z-word, forget it. We blew thew chance, we sacrificed it on the altar of commercialised lust. With the modern interconnectivity of worldwide news sites, there´s no full week without another acticle about an asshole invading other folks´ property to get his rocks off. How are we supposed to get through that massive wall the beasties have erected with their excesses?
How am I supposed to educate people about the possible harmlessness of zoophilia when even I have a hard time to believe in this due to a vast archive of evidence of harmful "zoophile" contact? I don´t want to sell lies or half truths, you know.
To summarize this: you´re wrong. It can not be stopped by talking and activism alone. Before we educate the public, we should try to educate our own community, many seem to be in essential need of proper education about zoophilia more than the public.
The states are running out of crimes to prosecute, since drug addicts are getting lighter fines and less sentences. Marijuana is being legalized for recreational use in a few more states.
Basically, organized criminals are becoming worried since there's no abundance of non-violent offenders to keep police busy, and police and getting worried that they will have to start chasing the violent crooks.
Easy Street is becoming hard work.
What's happening is that lawmakers are being pushed to create crimes out of insignificant things as an "Iron Curtain" to pull over real issues. They want society to take its eyes off the gold and focus on crippling one another.
Without all the fluff and animal fuckers to chase, law enforcement and the "source" of crime are much too close for one another's comfort.
By criminalizing sex with animals and persecuting zoophile's, these organizations are reinforcing their own "Safe Spaces."
It is made worse by the fact that anti-zoos are labeling ALL zoosexual sex as "animal sexual assault", and treat that opinion as "fact". One by one, each of the 50 states (in the United States) is criminalizing zoosexual sex, and nothing is being done to stop it. All of the remaining states where it is legal are falling to the anti-zoos; last year it was NH and OH, this year it looks like it will be KY.
I just read about this.
http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article125713729.html
Yes, THEY DID NOT WANT TO ANTAGONIZE ACTUAL ANIMAL KILLERS. With their alleged animal welfare bill.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/01/12/why-livestock-not-included-bestiality-bill-letter/96494344/
So many holes in this reasoning...
People who kill animals (in agriculture, such as slaughter) and hunters who kill animals are the ones who REALLY are abusing animals, yet they're "protected" legally, and the people who have harmless sex with an animal are being criminalized for no good reason. This is injustice.
Also, the contents of the 2nd blockquote you quoted is BS based on hatred, ignorance, misinformation, and lies (smearing).
Well, the last paragraph is actually true. If you search google news or so for bestiality, most cases are of people who molest children and animals or have child porn and animal porn.
The failure is in not realizing that there are different groups of people who have sexual contact with animals, and who have different motives and go different ways about it - and that law enforcement primarily goes after only one specific group of abusers, so the statistics are just not good to imply what they think they imply. Even if every single convicted child abuser had also abused animals, that would still tell them nothing about how many people have some form of sexual contacts without ever abusing any human. It's just a fallacy...