Anti-zoo book (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-01-15 00:25:28 by Skgrsgpf
I recently discovered this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=R1ncAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&focus=viewport
It is called "Animal Cruelty And Freedom Of Speech: When Worlds Collide". I don't like how the author calls sex with animals "animal sexual assault" (seems like BS to me). The pages I read were pages 6 to 8.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=R0r0Kc4X4zAC
Here's another. Only one chapter is about bestiality, and it's more or less a retread of several earlier articles by the same author. It's a good synopsis of the arguments against bestiality through history, from biblical times to the present. The arguments are pretty much all either unfounded or based on an emotional bias, and I don't think they stand up to scrutiny. But that could also be my own bias in part.
What do you think about the use of the term "sexual assault of an animal"? What bothers me is that that term is supposed to refer to ALL interspecies sex that involves humans. The end of page 6 of the book I discovered says that "prevailing legal, legislative and societal views" say that zoosexual sex is "sexual assault", and while it may be true that most people think that, the book treats that view as "fact" and tries to legitimize it (e.g. a bias).
Also, the book claims that zoos are more likely to be "criminals" committing "violent crimes" unrelated to zoo.
(Quotation marks indicate something literally said by the book).
I think all those accusations are the means to enablement. The accusations are creators of a self fulfilling prophecy. If society believes that zoophiles are rapists and dangerous criminals, society is more likely to enable it, or put zoophiles in a double bind situation that would create violence and rape on their behalf.
Yes, there are people who do "sexually assault" animals. I'm talking about actual assault, like beating, pinning, murdering, choking and drugging them. However, these situations are rare and that leads to a scenario where the rarity of occurances creates a demand for it. That is why the term sexual assault and abuse are universally applied to any sexual contact, because there is not enough harmful contact to satisfy punishment of actual abuses.
The more people believe that zoophiles are bad people, the more society goes out "looking" for the excuses to justify those claims. It's an addiction to the facts and the truth. An addiction to catching the "bad guy." If the facts or "bad guys" do no exist, these people will fanatically fabricate or create them. "Bringing ghosts to life" It is a symptom similar to what's known as Munchausen syndrome, Munchausen Hero Syndrome. A healthy person cannot claim sickness without being sick, so they make themselves sick or fake it... An ordinary person cannot claim to be a hero without a villain, so they create the villains or fake another persons villainy.
It's a form of persuasive redefinition, and is inherently dishonest. As a broader example, some activists define rape as any sexual activity without explicit verbal consent, lumping in things like consensual drunken hookups, and then claim based on this that 1 in 5 college women is raped.
This is tactics on their part, and I would just stick to the issues of harm and consent directly rather than letting them dictate the semantics of the argument.
obviously those activists are wrong, but sadly sheeple still believe it.
Not to mention that the 1 in 5 figure is incorrect anyway due to the way that study was structured.
Yes, this redefinition of all sexual contact between human and animal as sexual assault or rape, bothers me.
I remember some years ago, before bestiality was banned in Sweden, when some animal rights activists had a stall at a city square, campaigning to ban sex with animals. The signs in Swedish said "förbjud sex med djur" (ban sex with animals), and the English translation said "Ban animal rape!" (or something similar). I went up to them and tried to point out the translation error, and tried to ask what they really meant. The two activists there at the moment didn't speak Swedish, and had trouble understanding what I meant. I tried to point out the difference between the word 'sex' and the word 'rape', but they seemed very confused, as they didn't understand the Swedish sign anyway. I wonder, do animal rights activists travel to other countries just to campaign there? I wonder why else two women who didn't know any Swedish (they seemed to be from France or Spain, maybe) would campaign in Stockholm for a bestiality ban under the flag of a Swedish animal rights organisation.
I talked with them for a moment. Turned out they were quite extreme. They were of the opinion that people shouldn't keep pets at all, because animals should be free. In the end, since I criticized them (though I did so as politely as possible), one of them said: "People like you shouldn't exist". Ouch.
animal rights activists are generally pretty extreme sadly.
You have to understand that these people often aren't intentionally biased and hostile, in their mind they literally have no room for harmless sexual contact between humans and nonhumans. Try to search google news for "bestiality" and the overwhelming majority of cases you find will include abuse in some form or the other. That is the information they work with.
Of course they are often still unreasonably biased. Consider just this one paragraph:
legal, legislative and societal. That's exactly the opposition "other non-traditional sexual orientations" have faced in the past too. Yet he fails to make that connection.
^ this is what they actually believe.
There is one notable omission in the first paragraph I quoted: Scientific evidence. This is the only thing that will force them to reconsider their arguments.
Not to be demeaning to these people, although I like to be... I think they are comparing zoophilia to a traumatizing event that happened to themselves when they were young. They might be trying to convince themselves that sex with animals is abusive, because they might have been told that things done to them were not.
In which case, I honestly believe that these people have a twisted sense of reality, where if contact with humans is not abusive... so in converse, contact with animals must be abusive. Essentially, they need something to claim as being abusive in its entirety to make up for some kind of abuses committed against themselves. It's a dysfunction of the "Right vs Wrong" learning, and now they cater to an "all right or all wrong" view of the world. These people cannot seem to compromise with themselves and so they cannot compromise with others. Where normal people have a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other, the antizoo people have degenerated into one or the other.
Persecution of zoophiles and the laws created against zoosex acts, might as well be the result of child abuse. Here, the laws and persecution of zoophiles become the "feel good" vehicle against childhood traumas which could not be corrected.
Basically, zoophiles are their scapegoat although zoophiles did not consent to being the scapegoat. This leads me to my other hypothesis... The people who persecute and create laws against zoophiles, as traumatized people who cannot differentiate right from wrong, are the actual abusers who scapegoat on zoophiles as their excuse to abuse people and children.
The first paragraph you quoted is what I would consider to be anti-zoo propaganda — an attitude based on prejudice and intolerance, and not on reason or science. And what is said in the 2nd paragraph you quoted is a lie (or fabrication) — having sex with an animal does NOT automatically "cause pain or death" as the author claims.
An organization called the ALDF also uses the term "sexual assault of an animal" (to refer to ALL human-animal sex), so it seems awfully suspicious when that exact phrase starts appearing in anti-zoo legislation; for example, that term appears in Oregon's new law. So people with these irrational views are writing our laws, while zoosexuals are powerless to do anything to stop it because they're voiceless and oppressed.
Basically, lawmakers and animal rights are using the fact of traumatized people who were sexually assaulted to their advantage, abusing people who suffered abuse, so they can justify abusing a greater number of people from alternate lifestyles.
[removed]