Before I go on-topic, I know this is a very heavy subject.
I would enable No Salt mode but I decided not to because I feel we can trust each other to not go too far.
I've seen different arguments in many different threads, but they weren't exactly always fencehop-related, so I thought it needed it's own thread.
First, I think it's important to know what it actually is.
Everyone's definition here of fencehopping seems to be different.
That makes sense, because fencehopping is a community created term.
In my opinion, it means having sexual contact with an animal without the owners permission. (But I also include other contact like kissing, nipple pinching, etc.)
Some people here seem to only call it fencehopping if you break into the owners house without permission.
In my opinion, I see both of these actions as fencehopping.
Since fencehopping is a community created term, can't we have two different words for both of these?
Second, I'd like to know if you think it's right or wrong.
I'm going to start off with a problem that always seems to be discussed when people talk about fencehopping.
And that is the owner's consent.
Nobody likes the thought of something happening to their animals, and especially behind their backs.
Some could argue that it's the animal's choice, but we should not always allow animals to do what they want, whether it's because of safety or just because you want the animal to stay with you.
There's a reason people have animals and keep them.
The time you'll spend with that animal is very limited and can hardly be called a relationship at that point.
And honestly, I'd say that the one who paid for the animal and has been taking care of the animal gets to choose what happens with their animals, unless that would be harmful to the animal.
What if the owner finds out?
You'll definitely get the cops called on you or get knocked out.
It'll likely also result in the animal getting spayed/neutered or even euthanized.
And in the end, your relationship with the animal is ruined.
Although it's less bad, it'll spread the hate about zoophilia too.
Here's a few problems if you don't know the animal.
If you don't know the animal, you don't know about their health either.
This might result in health problems and harming the animal.
You don't know the animals age either, and for that reason you might be raping an underage animal.
And lastly, who knows you could be fencehopping a zoo's partner?
The chance is low, but it's there and it's worse than fencehopping your regular animal owner.
Repeated fencehopping is also a problem.
The result of catching and spreading zoonoses grows.
The chance of getting caught is also way higher.
This also shows signs of uncontrollability.
My conclusion: Fencehopping is wrong and there is no excuse to do it.
It has a big chance to hurt an animal and yourself, offend the owner and destroy zoophilia's image.
It's a game of luck and it's too risky.
There is no good reason to fencehop or support it.
If you want to change my mind or add something to my arguments, here's the place.
I agree with everything you've said here. I would add that if, in the future, we are able to determine and convey directly how the animal feels about a person, particularly during sexual contact, the animal's consent should override the owner's, in much the same way that people can choose to elope with their lovers despite their parents' objections.
But until that happens, you're taking a big risk for a small gain without any way to convince a third party that you aren't molesting their pet.
This is one of those things that I find very difficult to articulate, but... I think that the agency of nonhuman animals is something that needs to be expanded upon, sexual agency included. At the end of the day, people don't really own a nonhuman animal. They aren't pieces of furniture, and nonhuman animals in a human's care wouldn't interpret their caretaker's role as being an "owner". In my opinion, (non-harmful) sexual freedom is a reasonable allotment to any animal able to make the choice consciously(assuming good health), but on the condition that such matters are not clandestine(AKA the caretaker must know).
I do believe that what a nonhuman animal wants to do (when not coerced or affected to deduct from their reason on the matter) should supercede the wishes of their caretakers when it is reasonable or not harmful to allow it, but I also recognize that "reasonable" and "not harmful" are often best understood by the caretaker. I think that this issue is something that has to be addressed on a case by case basis, as their individual reasoning ability is something that I feel should play a role in the significance of the nonhuman's choice in this matter. For instance, if by some strange turn of events you're able to entice snakes and wished to offer manual stimulation to a snake in another person's care, most of them probably lack the capacity you'd be looking for to make that decision for themselves reasonably, and in that case the wishes of the snake should be left to caretaker approval. This is all kind of assuming that the wishes of the nonhuman animals in question are known, the opposite being something worth consideration, but that dimension of the conversation is beyond my scope.
That said, as things are right now, I can't really support it. It does cause more harm than good right now, because the world at large simply isn't ready for that kind of philosophy. For me, at least, there is a grey area, but it's a small one and few, if any, instances of it exist. I'll probably err more on the side of "let em' do it" when nonhuman animals get some decent cognitive enhancement, but until then, I'm gonna have to stay officially against it, regardless of my personal beliefs.
I agree for the most part and in fact, I consider myself to be morally opposed to most instances of such behavior, but like everything in life, there must be nuance.
I've had light sexual contact with animals that were not mine (bitches) without the owner's knowledge or consent. I didn't break into anyone's property, I didn't plan anything in advance, I didn't even think anything at all of that nature would happen before it did. Where I live, the vast majority of animals are sterilized. You kinda get used to assume that any animal you meet will never be interested in sex. I was just fortunate enough to get some privacy with a willing animal and whatever happened, happened.
What I did was always with respect for the animal. And although I did it to also satisfy a curiosity of mine, I always put their pleasure before my own.
I'm not trying to excuse what I did, but I think the concept of fencehopping is frankly demonized by some, it is in truth much more nuanced. No, I'll never defend people who actually break into farms to get their rocks off with the first cow/horse/sheep/chicken who doesn't put up a good enough fight, but not all "fencehopping" is like that.
I sincerely doubt that has ever been the case.
Pretty much how I feel about it. Excellent point man.
Well, fencehopping is fencehopping, regardless of your personal motives , the situation or your intentions. Compare it to stealing a unlocked bike standing in the streets...the judge will not be impressed with all of your defensive attempts. Yes, there´s nuances, but the deed is what it is, regardless of nuancing.
Let´s see if I can clarify it some more. Imagine you go out and buy a hamburger from the golden double arches (McD). When the employee building your burger whips his dick through all the ingredients, are you less upset if you still get the food you ordered? Does it make a difference when you get the hamburger for free?
Look, man, all I know is that these lame excuses ("They are disgusting fencehoppers, but I just took a chance out of curiosity and was extra cautious not to hurt the animal") are only trying to cover up the guilt.
If you read your post again, maybe you´ll notice something I noticed immediately. Precisely, I quote "No, I´ll never defend people who actually break into farms...", but it seems absolutely okay for you to have sex with an animal behind its owners back when you´re " not breaking a lock, not planning it in advance, with respect for the animal...etc. pp."... That´s double standards, my friend. What you´re basically implying is that it´s a minor, permittable case of fencehopping, when the owner doesn´t lock his animals in everytime he´s absent...quite the opposite is true. You don´t have to hop a literal fence, hopping the metaphorical fence by betraying the owner´s trust is enough to qualify as a fencehopper. If you destroy a lock, dorr, or anything else that is meant to keep you out of property, it´s not a major cae of fencehopping, it´s fencehopping accompanied by break and enter.
And be honest, isn´t what you did here not the same thing you can witness in everyone breaking the laws? Your guilt isn´t reduced by pointing fingers at others who gathered "more" guilt? "Hey, offisa, yeah, I drove over a red light, but there are folks that do much worse things!"
And you know what? There are lots of folks having "started their zoo career" the exact same way, telling exact the same things as you (" no break and enter, just my curiosity, etc. pp. ..yadda yadda"), but abandoned their "honorable fencehopper resolutions" immediately after the owner built a fence around their "favourite animals". I know this sermon. And I also know where this is heading to. If we follow your argumentation, where will we draw the line? At your personal situation? Or will we only call it fencehopping when the perpetrator breaks into property with a wrecking ball, kills the owner, fucks the animals and muches away at the trash can? Where shall we draw the line? How soon until the next one confessing his "nuanced" fencehopping feels entitled to push the limits further? How long until we arrive at Aluzky levels? How long until we exceed them?
IMHO, you can argue as long as you want, but we´re not gonna negotiate where fencehopping starts and "nuances" end, m´kay. You did it with an animal behind his owners back and that is practically anything it has to be to call it fencehopping. Additionally to this moral issue, there´s also the issue of being caught and all the repercussions resulting from that, for you personally (life destroyed, socially and in some areas of the world, literally...or can you outrun a bullet?) and for our entire community who can admire your mug shot at the top of one of these incredibly "made up, biased and unresearched" articles of media agencies.
You don´t know nothing about the animal and its possible special conditions (allergic reactions), the owner who is possibly catching you in flagranti doesn´t know whether you have a weapon on you (I beat up a fencehopper at my riding club who drew a knife against me), you risk everything because you simply cannot control yourself ("curiosity")....and all of that for "light sexual contact".
BTW: There are cases in which the animal was euthanised after being sexually abused by some random asshole. Some owners cannot deal with the fact their animals have been sexually assaulted and give them away to a shelter. If the shelter cannot find another owner for this animal, well , what do you think the shelter personnel will do with an old animal no one wants to adopt? Hint: Limited space in shelters. Especially with male animals, it´s hard to find another owner willing to deal with constant attempts of humping, for a male horse it´s an almost certain death sentence when it´s seized from a "zoo". No "normal" owner will happily deal with a stallion who has learned and is trying to mate with any human at any given opportunity. Take a guess where these horses will definitely end...another hint: open a can of dog/cat food.
I´m accustomed to this way of thinking you display here. I´ve heard this so often in all the years, all this "...but I am just..." and "...it just was..", "...nuances...". Why do you think we made the zeta rules so clear about fencehopping and other peoples´ animals? ...Third and last hint for today: It wasn´t because we wanted to spoil someone else´s fun...a wrong is a wrong, regardless of how diligently you try to intellectualise it.
I think you're getting way too excited over this post and misinterpreting it dude. Read it again.
His point is that there are degrees of wrong dude, not that it's ever "right." He's not defending his actions, nor writing a blank check to those who fencehop without breaking locks.
You inserted your penis in animals that did not belong to you, and multiple times as I understand it. I never even went that far. So just let me go ahead and disregard everything you just said.
Oh, right. I forgot. When you did it it was okay.
I hope you take the time to reflect on that statement you just made.
At the end of the day, we are animal fuckers. Playing some sort of morality pissing contest about what animals are okay to fuck or not is completely absurd.
While I basically agree with the core message of your comment, I am still uncomfortable with how extreme your aversion to fencehopping is in some aspects. Having taken a clear stance against this phenomenon in some of my previous posts, I wouldn't even dare to relativize the illegal and unethical nature of fencehopping. On the other hand, I still acknowledge that there might be certain scenarios in which a conflict between the ethical and the legal dimension of fencehopping might arise. Let me give you an example which might make you reconsider your point of view. The following, of course fictional scenario came to my mind when I was with my mare this evening – a complex moral dilemma which demands a lot of sense and sensibility to resolve: Just imagine a young man – perhaps an acquaintance from a public stable you frequently deliver hay to – approaches you asking for what is referred to as "Reitbeteiligung" in German – usually a deal between a horse owner with too little time to take care of his horse and another person with enough time but too little money to afford one. While initially, you are insecure if you should agree to such an arrangement, you eventually grant hin the permission to ride, train and spend time with one of your mares for a monthly fee. This does not refer to your beloved one, of course. For a few weeks (or months), everything works out in a most favorable way: The young man proves to be an excellent rider, and you can't help but acknowledge the exceptionally close bond he has established with your mare. So close that you start to wonder if his affection for horses might go beyond what is considered as normal among the equestrian community. So far, so good. Now one day, you catch this young man in flagrante delicto with your mare. So here's our dilemma: How should you react in this situation? On the one hand, you know that he has been treating your mare with care and respect, and it goes without saying that he would never abuse her. Indeed, she even seemed to enjoy what he was doing with her in a way which reminds you of your own sexual experiences with your girl. On the other hand, how he chose to have sex with YOUR mare regardless of your consent infuriates you. The fact that he shamelessly abused your trust by acting out his sexuality in a most irresponsible way fuels your contempt for what he's done even more. As I already stated, I invented this highly fictional and hypothetical example while cuddling with my mare, wondering what my reaction would be if something like that ever happened to me. How would you feel, 30-30? Enraged, disappointed, hurt? And would you refer to this case as fencehopping?
First I have to say I´d never ever let someone else do my duties, so no Reitbeteiligung will ever come into a comparable situation like you described. But let´s take your scenario for real.
I´d probably have a private conversation with this guy first, explaining to him why I will kick him out , but won´t turn anyone in on him. I´d explain why fucking an animal behind an owner´s back never is a good idea and a line that never should be crossed, no matter what. If this imaginary guy truly is such a "Pferdeversteher", I´d ask him why he hasn´t tried to buy her if he loves her so much. BTW, lack of money is not an excuse, I had to work off my ass for nearly two years until I had gathered the 10 000 Deutsche Mark for my mare.
If this guy shows some similarities with me in dedication and love for horses, I´d even think about selling him "his" mare, but even then, he´s better not returning to my farm and I´ll surely keep an eye on him. But that really is a "best case scenario", the common fencehopper (yes, it still is fencehopping) usually doesn´t show such good spirit. Broken trust is broken trust, no matter what this guy is like. Your diagnosis of rage and disappointment is wrong, it´s the broken trust that really matters for me. I´m not disappointed or hurt because someone betrays me...but I won´t place the same amount of trust in that person again. Rage only comes into play when our hypothetical fencehopper isn´t as "nice" as you described him; the less nice, the more rage and infuriation.
But in any case, this guy would get a "Standpauke" he won´t forget for the rest of his life.
OK, so you take a more radical stance towards the issue than I had expected. You know, my primary motivation to design this scenario was to find out how far you go in your aversion to fencehopping and to test under which circumstances you might be willing to question your dogmatic views. Nevertheless, I get your point and I go along with your argument on broken trust. Though, I am certain that my reaction would be more diplomatic in case I were confronted with such a situation – at least under certain conditions, which I might have failed to include in my last comment. First, I assume that the protagonist of my little story hasn't had sex with this mare before, meaning that the incident I witnessed has happened in the heat of passion rather than based on a rational, conscious decision. It goes without saying that such a faux pas is acceptable only once and not several times in a row. Assuming that this is the case, he'd still be obliged to address me to confess what he has done even if I hadn't caught him in the act. In case he failed to do so, I'd certainly adhere to the strategy you proposed. Next, a key criterion is the young man's age. While most of us have to admit that they have made some foolish mistakes as a teenager, it is still crucial to reach a certain state of maturity and take responsibility for one's actions. Accordingly, I'd tolerate said behavior by an 18-year old, who is presumably sexually inexperienced and thus prone to acting on impulse, but not by a man in his late twenties, who I assume should be able to control his sexual desires. If these requirements are met, I am convinced that the we would come to a mutual agreement on how to deal with the situation. If not, he'd have to face the dire consequences of his foolish actions.
I've made the point before and I'll make it again.
I think it's important to have a strong, long-term relationship with an animal before being sexual with them. Going to use dogs as my example because they're what I'm familiar with. An individual dog's body language does differ from other dogs, even if there are some obvious common trends. And I think it's important to understand not just the body language common to the species, but the way that a particular individual animal acts and reacts to things.
That said, it is possible to have a relationship like the one I described with an animal that doesn't belong to you. A friend's dog, that you've spent a lot of time with, and maybe even took care of when your friend was away, as an example.
In that sort of case, I wouldn't say that that sort of fencehopping is necessarily immoral. Though I would tend to say that it is on the stupid side, and ought to be illegal all the same (since illegal and immoral are two different things).
I call fence hopping any sexual contact with animals that belong to someone else. I don't consider things like kissing sexual unless you mean like them licking in your mouth because regular dog owners do that too(hell, some dog owners happily get licked in the mouth by dogs anyways haha).
Is it wrong? I'd say it's wrong in the way of breaking trust with the owner of the dog for sure. There's almost always an unspoken expectation there that you won't be touching their pet sexually lol. If it's something that the dog expresses desire in, I can't say whether it's objectively immoral or not because to that granular a degree I'd say it's subjective to individual people and their experiences. I'd also say that it does depend on the level of sexual contact as well, because like you said, some things could open up concerns for adversely affecting health, such as having sex with a bitch who could be at risk of contracting pyometra. Not all sexual contact poses such a risk though. Overall, it is something risky to be doing regardless, because getting caught could be life ruining.
Personally, it's hard for me to judge because in my younger years I did fencehop a couple times, but I know that while what I did was definitely stupid and dangerous, I always treated the animal(male dogs) with care and was very attentive to them(for example one was the positive platonic bonding experience with a neglected dog over the course of months that eventually led to sexual interaction) and I can't say I regret it because I've been able to positively integrate those experiences and learn from them. Fencehopping is not something I would consider doing any more though because of the risk involved simply being far from worth it to me(among other things). I've got my own loving pack.
As for how I'd feel if someone had sexual interaction with my pets, I've got seemingly a different point of view than most. I'm definitely protective of my pets' well-being, but I also give them the freedom of choice to have sexual interaction with others if it's something they express, granted that I trust the zoo they're expressing it towards. I am careful with the zoo friends I make especially IRL, so it's not nearly as lax as some people may jump to conclusions for, and those who I'd trust are usually more reserved or hesitant about it anyways. I've only ever had one zoo friend, an old roommate, actually have sexual interaction with one of my pets, and it was light interaction at that. I believe in the dogs right to choose, it's just more a matter of ensuring that said zoo wouldn't do anything to hurt my dogs.
Edit: also just in case I get shit for the neglected dog thing, I did call them in several times but nothing ever came of it. One time they put a tarp up on the dogs kennel and idk if that was from me calling on them but that's all they did until years later he just wasn't there anymore. I wrote a story about it sometime in the past; if people want me to elaborate more on it I'd be happy to
The only time fencehopping would not be wrong would be in an alternate universe where animals and humans could communicate explicitly (i.e. verbally in the same language). In such a case, the neighbor's dog, your friend's horse, etc. could voice their attraction and desire for you, both initially and if caught/questioned, so their consent would override the desires of their owner/caretaker. It would be like dating the daughter/son of someone who doesn't like you or want their child dating you; if the person is legally able to consent, that overrides mommy or daddy's disapproval. (I know full-grown animals are not children, but this is the best analogy I could think of.)
However, we clearly don't live in that world. Since we don't, we have to build trust/consent with animals over time and in private/safe settings--which you cannot do with someone else's animal, both for practical and moral reasons. Without that deep relationship, trust, and understanding built from actually living with and caring for your animal yourself--and without the risk of his/her actual owner objecting to what you are doing--fencehopping is dangerous and immoral.
I'm still in struggles with the morales of sexual relationships with your own animals to be honest and I'v been open to myself about being a zoo for years now.
However no I don't think fencehopping is something's that's ok for us to do. Because yes I believe it shows a lack restraint. And yes it could be another zoos partner. And yes that lack of relationship is there. And you never know there could be underline medical issues that you're unaware of. On the other hand one could develop a relationship with a good friends animal and certain relations may follow, Do I think that's inherently wrong, no. Should we do it, no.
Trespassing is a violation on the property rights of the owner of the place. Breaking into a barn that does not belong to you in order to have sex with a horse is thus a bad thing.
(Ab)Using property that does not belong to you without permission from the people who is responsible of it is also a flagrant violation of property rights. You might as well ask if it is right to steal a motorbike while the owner is not looking, and then take it back to his garage in such a way that nobody knows that you have used the motorbike. If you borrow a horse for "riding" you are just doing the same. It is a clear violation of property rights.
As a non-zoophile ally I would like to add my two cents: I do not think the public outside of zoophiles is likely to ever agree to fence hoping even if they fully accept zoophilia. Think of it this way, most humans see their pets as a member of the family, now imagine some random guy you did not know was sneaking around having sex with you son or daughter intentionally keeping it secret from you because they know you would not be happy about it, how would this make you feel? It would make you strongly question their moral standing even if the sex was always consentual because they are being sneaky about it. I know animals and kids are not the same but I just have a very hard time seeing how fence hopping is going to be considered acceptable.
Simply Wrong to do and those who think it is OK just line themselves up with the beastist group and are a shame to our society. That whole I can't afford my own excuse so many use is crap. if you truly have a love for something you make it happen in your life. Outside that it is just merely a fetish fantasy if your not willing to take on the responsibility of first setting yourself up to have said animal then making sure you have just as much ambition to take care of it for the rest of it's life. Also acknowledging said animal you do find might not be interested, This means thinking without your penis! Those who can still keep a price tag on something they confess to love and only sell later when times get tough show their true colors and are by no means Zoos. But that is another ranting topic for another day!