New anti-zoo bill in Vermont (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-02-17 23:45:08 by Skgrsgpf
There is a new anti-zoo bill in Vermont:
http://legiscan.com/VT/text/H0325/2017
That means there are now currently 3 states in the U.S. that have current (active) anti-zoo bills: Vermont, Kentucky and Texas. AND these 3 states are among the few remaining states of the U.S. where sex with animals is legal.
As some are aware, 4 states (Alabama, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Ohio) have banned sex with animals in the past few years. New Hampshire and Ohio banned it last year.
Things just keep getting worse and worse.
Um, does this ban all mouth to mouth contact?
And... anus to anus contact?
Watching is animal cruelty too.
Why is this paragraph under animal cruelty?
A short google search for Rep. Curtis McCormack later:
Every time.
\>ASS TO ASS
HSUS is on a crusade to ban sex with animals in all 50 states, and I worry that they may succeed. One by one, all of the states in the US are becoming anti-zoo, and that gives one a feeling of helplessness. HSUS has an anti-zoo agenda and the politicians are in their pockets; phrases HSUS invented are now being written into law. (Maybe because HSUS has a lot of money). No one is doing anything to stop this onslaught.
Interesting. It makes me wonder, if an organization could function as a pro-zoo counterpart to HSUS, what would happen?
Nothing would change. Before the ban, ZETA tried to influence the discussion, sent petitions to politicians, did some lobbying...and still, no different result from the usual expectable one. One, ten or a million "pro zoo" organisations, it doesn´t matter. As long as "zoophile" is a legitimate synonym for fencehopper and bestialist, society does absolutely right to deny any trust in us.There´s too much evidence out there showing us from our very worst side, folks..and until the constant stream of animal porn flix, the fencehopping cases and other dubious conduct won´t cease to produce valid reasons why "zoophilia" should NOT be legal by any chance, things won´t change...
What kind of strategy do you propose to change our situation for the better? There is no way of eradicating animal pornography as well as there is no way of keeping people from watching it. Nor are we capable of preventing socially inappropriate or illegal behaviors such as fencehopping. Nevertheless, based upon my experience with this forum, I am confident that the majority of zoophiles adhere to certain ethical standards, which means that only a minor fraction of the community actually engages in activities which are detrimental to our public image. By the way, do you have any reliable sources such as crime statistics to back your assertion that fencehopping is still common among zoophiles?
Well, I have no miracle strategy that brings "zoo freedom"...but let me ask you this: If you apply for a new job, do you take good care of your outward appearance or do you apply undouched, smelly, with boogers sticking in your face, bad breath and a t-shirt that perfectly gives away what you had for breakfast this morning? And what you had for dinner last night? Even the best qualified specialist will have trouble getting a job if he looks like a chimera between a pig and a couch potatoe. It´s really as simple as this...offer a LIKEABLE picture and things tend to work out smoothely. Sure it´s true that eradicating animal porn is a pretty hard thing to accomplish, but the current situation with masses of AP easily accessible for anyone has set the hostile undertone of this conflict. I´m pretty much aware that , as long as there is some way of connection, AP will be swapped, bought and sold, but IMHO, AP shouldn´t be openly available anymore. Even if only the AP sites on the surface net are taken down, that would help our cause tremenduously. It´s also true that no one can keep a fencehopper from hopping fences, but what we can and absolutely should do is distancing ourselves from those individuals AFAP. No "...but the animal hasn´t been harmed, so I´ll call it genuine zoophilia", no "...yeah, fencehopping is bad, but it isn´t fencehopping when ....(insert silly justification attempt here)". Until today, I´ve not heard a general condemnation of fencehopping practices from "the zoophilies"...and that although "we´re all so against fencehopping"...
I object your totally invalid assumption of "...only a minor fraction of the community...". Please take note that for society, we´re ALL "zoophiles"...from the manchild masturbating behind his screen to anthropomorph anime characters to the worst animal rapist and ripper. When you call us all "zoophiles", the percentage of "bad apples" is quickly up to over 80 %. If you don´t believe me, do a little experiment and read through some BF threads, paying close attention to what all those individuals behind the fancy online names like "AnimalFucker2012" and "Horsedickwhore" (assumably a male) display....just read two or three days through some threads in BF, summarise all the levels of obvious sado-masochistic insanity, add the fetishists and the obsessed ("mixoscopia bestialis"...vulgo "I wanna see a dog fuck this bitch!"), don´t forget the mentally unstable and fantasizers, then extrapolate an average level of "insanity" of BF users. Are there really "only a few bad examples" now?
As far as I know, there are no statistics singling out fencehopping incidents. But from what I read in various forums, fencehopping is still a pretty common thing for "zoophiles" without animals of their own. Even if we separate between bestialists and zoophiles, there are still roughly around 25 % of people calling themselves zoophiles not excluding fencehopping categorically. Phrases like "When the right opportunity arises at the right moment" give a slight hint at how the ethical issue of fencehopping is treated by the average "zoo".
I think a better analogy might be applying for a new job if you happen to have the same identifying marks as a group who traditionally are chimeras between a pigs and a couch potatoes, because obviously in this case nobody is even making the slightest attempt to base the laws on an individual they see before them.
Even if this distinction were made it is probably irrelevant, since there will never be a way to legislate "this law applies for 'zoophiles' (as defined by some rather arbitrary means), and this other law applies for 'poseurs'."
For that reason, laws which ban ALL sex with animals, regardless of the specific situation, are discriminatory (social profiling and due process violations) and shouldn't be enacted; yet they are and continue to be created at an alarming rate. All these new anti-zoo laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional and yet no one is doing anything to stop them or challenge them.
I'm not so sure that they're discriminatory in nature. It may seem that way, but they're attacking the act, not the people, really. The common verbiage when discussing this kind of stuff often includes "cruelty", and there's evidence to back up the terminology they use. It's easy to think something that hurts you is discriminatory since your own experience is so personal as it is. I think the issue is that the people drafting and voting on these bills truly believe it to be unethical or immoral, despite separation of church and state.
If a place has a law banning gay sex, that is usually viewed as discriminatory against gay people, even if some gay people choose to not have sex. This is similar to zoo in that a law prohibiting a sex act with an animal is discriminatory against zoos (the people) even if zoos choose to not have sex with an animal. Society doesn't make this association due to zoosex being viewed as "abuse". (While they hypocritically do not view slaughter or spaying/neutering as "abuse").
The difference is that no gay men died from having sex, and there was no nonhuman element. Bans on gay sex 'protect' onlookers, while bans on bestiality 'protect' nonhuman animals(as we can assume that coercion is much less possible between two humans). The argument against gay sex was that they were sick, in some capacity, as well as some more biblical reasonings. Spaying/neutering/slaughtering is categorized differently, as items of necessity to prevent overpopulation and for sustenance. Sex is not a necessary evil, in the eyes of the public.
We already know why anthroposexuals lean toward 'it's abuse', but I'll recap.
We can't establish an explicit line of communication in the eyes of the public, and that means consent is going to be seen as out of reach for many people, regardless of your individual ability to interpret body language. They also can't report rape or abuse like a human can, currently.
It is paramount that consent be informed, for most if not all people. Although nonhuman animals can certainly be informed about the finer points of sex, the public at large would want a reasonable guarantee that the nonhuman knows what they're getting into. Yeah, zoosex is different, yeah there's less that needs understanding, but it's one of the reasons why "they're like kids" is somewhat valid.
Bad people. Wayne Allen Dean, Leroy Johnson, Thurman Mcgriff, and regardless of the validity the recent Hubbard case isn't doing anyone any favors... These people are damn good reasons to rail against bestiality, and they're not the only ones.
It doesn't help to call these decisions mere discrimination, because they aren't. There are links outlined in studies between bestiality, zoosadism, violence, etc, and the former two are considered precursors to crimes directed at humans. This isn't just a "Yucky, they suck dog dicks!". It's a "Well given what we have, a statisticaally disproportionate number of people that do this have criminal tendencies and are unstable, and there's no reason for us to enable them".
I hope we get ample opportunity to discuss these issues in depth in the wiki, the reasoning behind actions against bestiality. It's convenient to label a law as anti-zoo, but it's just anti-bestiality still
Abuse was already illegal in the relevant jurisdictions, therefore the only population impacted by these laws would by definition be those who have non-abusive sexual contact. Therefore such laws are by definition discriminatory (acting categorically rather than by individual merit) against people who are doing nothing wrong.
I am not aware of any study showing evidence that a happy, balanced animal/human relationship which became physical is correlated to criminal tendencies (at least not criminal beyond these specific laws!). If you are aware of any such study, could you please post so I can inform myself?
The null would be that there is no adverse effect caused by sexual contact, but the null is not what is commonly acknowledged. We understand that some common arguments against bestiality conflate the sexual standards of human and nonhuman animal; that means they must be of age, able to give verbal consent, etc. It's not discriminatory by nature because the assumption is that it is rape. It can also be cited that interspecies attraction is as yet observed in a statistically insignificant minority, and consequently argued that there is most often sexual manipulation involved. Again, though, I see it less as "Time to persecute those sexual deviants!" and more as "Protecting puppies = votes!" from the perspective of a legislator, and "I voted to protect the puppies!" for your average person. Hate the sin, love the sinner and all.
The common perception is that the very inception of the attractions aren't healthy, nor is anything that follows. I'll have to get the study later, but basically most of the 'zoophiles' that researchers have direct access to are 1. criminals or 2. committed to a mental hospital or criminally insane. The studies are lopsided because of it, but are technically valid and aren't themselves biased outside of the sample. Given that your average zoo won't come out and let researchers do their thing, that's where your sample groups will come from... the involuntary subjects, aka the ones that were incarcerated. It's a cruel irony that staying in the shadows has probably worsened the image of zoos in that regard.
If you could reword your first response (up until the last couple sentences), maybe I could better understand your point. I don't see how it refutes what I'm saying.
As to the second part, I'm guessing from your earlier use of the word "null" that you might be at least peripherally familiar with experimental design. If so, you should know why the conclusions of a study based on a massively biased sample population cannot be meaningfully applied elsewhere.
A better way of saying this is, "given that your average zoo won't come out and let researchers do their thing, there are no sufficient sample groups available, therefore no meaningful research can yet be performed without extensive disclaimers."
Even so, I think people are increasingly willing to let researchers do their thing, particularly online. That has limits too, of course, but the limitations have consequences far more benign than passing off a study using PRISONERS AND INSANE PEOPLE as a foundation for unbiased research. Are you kidding me.
Perhaps it would be better if I said it this way.
There is an assumption that zoosex = rape. Laws against rape aren't discriminatory against potential rapists. You don't think "Those filthy pussy grabbers need to be put behind bars". You probably think "Nobody deserves to be violated like that, we need to enforce against this conduct to protect people from rape". This really is a rape law to alot of people. It's easier for law enforcement for this to be a blanket thing, too, since they especially don't have the resources to know 100% how a nonhuman animal feels about something.
As a biologist, I'm required to know. I'm fairly certain that I discussed my scientific persuasion earlier, but it's understandable that people wouldn't remember it.
This is kind of a response to both this quote and the one above.
That's the ideal way of going about it. Truth is though, we can be impatient sometimes. If it's of any consolation, lots of the linking studies were in journals of criminal psychology. The conclusions there were still valid, though. In prison populations convicted of violent crimes and those of clinically insane individuals, there's a statistically significant skew towards bestiality that isn't reflected in surveyed control groups.
This is kind of difficult to articulate but, while the results are often hard to doctor, the science community isn't going to offer the same level of scrutiny for everything(Think of it as scientists having the liberty to choose what they do, but less so how they do it). A study that affirms scientists' beliefs will leave scientists less inclined to scrutinize it or point out flaws in the study, with the opposite being true as well.
I'd like to clarify that the skew in the prison/insane population as compared to survey statistics of civilians allows for two conclusions, given the correlation they observed. One, "Violent or insane individuals are more likely to engage in or be attracted to zoosex", and two, "Those that are attracted to or engage in zoosex are more likely to be violent or insane". As any good study has in a correlational study, there was a control. Of course there's always the possibility that the prison population was more perceptive to those attractions or didn't suppress them, or that the control lied conversely. We just have to trust the data and hope everyone was being honest in cases like that.
As an aside, sexual deviance has been correlated with unrelated criminal behavior on other fronts as well. the same complications arise, but they're pretty consistent. It's said to be a good indicator because it evidences disregard for existing moral/ethical frameworks or something to that effect, unless that's been debunked and I didn't hear about it. I specialize in genetics and molecular biology, so my knowledge of it is comparatively limited.
But one does not know 100% what an animal is thinking in terms of anything that people do to them. For example, people don't know 100% what an animal thinks if it is spayed/neutered, or how an animal feels being confined to a cage or a home. So why then ignore that fact with regard to everything, but then exclude it when it comes to sex? It doesn't make sense.
The statistics coming from prison populations is nonsense. It's like saying that prisoners like to get more tattoos than normal people. While it may be true, it doesn't make tattooing wrong. And like TokenHorseGuy said, the studies being cited by legislators are biased because of their sample selection problem. Being a zoo doesn't make one more likely to be violent, and studies which say that are wrong.
Now you're being a broken record. I say that in your best interest, mind you. Reiterating the same point without addressing my point doesn't advance the conversation. Note that what I say doesn't necessarily reflect what I personally believe from an ethical or moral standpoint. I'm currently speaking using another perspective.
I'll keep this short. It is seen as having a distinct and significant purpose whose importance supercedes that of the wishes of the individual that cannot offer informed consent, and desexing is seen as having consequences whose ill effects are outweighed by the benefits.
We know what the ill effects are. They're various and in some cases ostensible, but they are not profound or entirely likely at the end of the day.
Nonhuman animals are unique in that currently they are viewed as never having the capacity for informed consent. So, like with young children, their legal guardians or caretakers are tasked with that responsibility. Since pets are not expected or desired to reproduce, and indecent exposure and activities are one of the taboos of modern society, an operation that can help prevent that in what are considered non-rational individuals is considered ideal.
Pet overpopulation is a thing, especially in warmer and more densely populated climes.
In the face of a family that doesn't care to erm... attend to their companion, it can be argued that neutering and spaying would thusly prevent any sexual frustration from coming about.
I covered this before while discussing it with tokenhorseguy, but the prison study was a comparative study, it took results from a previous survey that randomly selected civilians, and compared them to results taken from prison populations and those in mental institutions. The methods and sampling, loathe as I am to admit it, was sound in both cases. The civilian survey they used was distributed at the national level iirc, so it covered many demographics, and the prison statistics were taken from multiple institutions. There is the potential of human error on the part of those surveyed, but not so much for the researchers. TL;DR The sample selection is way better than you think, but we can't control for liars well.
The correlation between sexual deviance and crime isn't a new one and shows up fairly consistently. This is a fickle thing too, because there's evidence that other deviant sexualities have somewhat consistent traits associated with them; pedophiles, for instance, often have reduced cerebral white matter and average 10 to 15 less in IQ testing. There are also cases of exhibitionist tendencies forming after a traumatic brain injury. In many cases, we're observing individuals with certain mental conditionss developing paraphilias more often than 'normal people', as well. People on the autism spectrum are among the more notable examples of that.
These are all likelihoods, though. And in the bigger picture they probably are small minorities, the insane ones, the violent ones... but these trends are still things worth considering, though. Asking "Why are prison populations more likely to proffer a carnal desire for dogs?" is worth doing.
I'm still having a bit of difficulty understanding which side of which argument you're trying to support, so maybe I've got some of these wrong, but...
Right, said another way: it's easy to focus on people's atypical, observable traits. Who thinks the easy, superficial approach that ignores context is usually the one that gives best results?
What's your point? Since some extrapolated conclusions are valid, therefore all extrapolated conclusions are valid?
There's also the possibility that they were studying the wrong thing. Insufficient data about X + biased/insufficient population of X + data about X not collected by the research instrument = results which are irrelevant to predict anything about X, even if there is a nice control for whatever they were actually trying to study.
Only in cases where the law in question is moral/ethical, I suspect.
The ones that recognize limited resources. Law enforcement doesn't currently have the technology to discern a rapey relationship with a nonhuman that has no visible signs from a not rapey one. That, and nonhuman animals are priority #2 (for legislators and a majority of people), so it makes sense not to put more effort in than they need to. In the face of limited time and resources, it does give the best results relative to the amount of work put in because the margin of error is narrow enough for their purposes that the undue harm caused by it is acceptable.
That conclusion is still valid given the data... given their reference of a robust civilian survey and the diverse prison samples they used. We can all say that it's an extrapolation, but that's not convincing enough. Their target populations to look at were criminals and the criminally insane, but it's reasonable to assume that it represents a small portion of your civilian population as well.
It was a study published in a journal for criminal psychology, so I stll suspect that they were studying exactly what they wanted to.
More like torturing and raping small animals, then torturing and raping human animals, among other violent crime. There can also be some social manipulation or pathological lying at work, that isn't exclusive to their paraphilia. It's considered a 'gateway' that functions as an early sign for this kind of stuff, but can carry on into later life along with the aforementioned stuff.
Again though, this is an issue of scale. You're looking at a small percent of a small percent of a population when you look at just zoophiles. It still stands that the conclusion that it's more likely among those attracted to nonhuman animals is probably accurate, from what I've observed in other realms, but that doesn't mean it constitutes a number of people that is significant enough for us to worry about.
I dunno if I'm even taking a side, at any rate.
The harm done by anti-zoo laws far outweighs the good. For example, the trauma of a zoo having their animal (lover) confiscated by authorities just because he/she had sex with the animal is unacceptable and unethical. There are a number of other immoral aspects of anti-zoo laws, such as forcing a zoo to pay the state a fine for violating an unjust law which should not even exist in the first place.
Anti-zoo laws also harm zoos psychologically, especially those who are struggling to make sense of (and accept) their zoo identity.
Context is important "the margin of error is narrow enough for their purposes that the undue harm caused by it is acceptable."
We've been over this.
There's an argument against bestiality that needs research to be completely disproven. It would be unethical if they performed seizures and issued fines without giving prior notice of the law, but even unjust laws can be ethical.
I'd like to revisit the responsible drug user example, too. You wouldn't call a cocaine or heroin ban unethical, but you'd probably be inclined to think it was if you were one yourself.
"The harm done by anti zoo laws "...one last time: there are NO anti "zoo" laws, there are only anti bestiality laws. You can prohibit acts of bestiality, not zoophilia. You can prohibit gay sex, but not being gay, so STOP that crap now. And where is the data you base your assumptions on? What "harm"? The most "zoos" I met that had a police raid in their homes didn´t look "harmed" or "traumatised" to me, most of them were very quick to open up "other possibilities" rather immediately.
Would you please stop repeating the same wrong and delusional stuff over and over again? THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SEX WITH WHATEVER YOU CAN IMAGINE! Not even a heterosexual, "normal" guy or gal has any "right" on sex. But exactly that is what you demand, mate, the right to sleep with animals (preferrably any animal that runs across your path, amirite?). There never was such a thing, nor will it ever be one. All your constructed "But if.." scenarios where a "zoo" "accidentally" gets caught or walked in...well, bad preparation and carelessness. Work on that rather than trying to bump your head through a massive 5 meter concrete wall of social rejection. And let me just ask that: cui bono? Whom would a legalisation benefit? It wouldn´t affect my life significantly and I doubt that any zoo who is acting reasonable and in full consciousness of the controversial nature of his "hobby" would notice any changes , too. Shut the door, draw the curtains. If you fuck up, don´t blame society for your own stupidity.
Your reasoning damn sounds like that of a 15 y. o. who hasn´t yet accepted that the world is not his oyster and there are significant differences between the world between the ears and the real world out there. I´ll just insert what the BF user Saddlebum66, one of the few BF memeber I have real respect for, replied in one of your "Anti zoo bill in X" threads:
"Has anyone ever considered that the "other side" isn´t anti zoo, but pro animal? We´d probably do better if we changed THAT little bit of our thinking alone...and another change LONG overdue and bigtime retro...STOP seeking permission. We´re all adults, I think (is that so, Skg...?!? Doesn´t sound like it sometimes...)whose permission do we need? (...) Anyone who DOES need that approval and/or that permission is probabvly doing something they shouldn´t be doing...If your moral compass isn´t pointing TRUE NORTH, you need another hobby."
And another chuck of wise words from the same user:
"Staying alive and out of jug IS a pursuit of happiness...and asking some of you to put the brakes on attitude and rhetoric that affects all of us doesn´t seem like a cardinal vice."
and finally the last big blow from Saddlebum66, although it originally discussed accusations of the "anti zoo" laws being unconstitutional, but it perfectly fits into our little dispute as well:
"UNconstitutional? Y´all really need to think some more before you talk... regardless of the motivation, most of the laws you all decry are NOT unconstitutional...what you of limited viewpoint see as discrimination, MANY MORE see as animal welfare...you are fostrering and nurturing your own paranoia and creating enemies you don´t have...the evil closet monkey in this is MANIPULATION...and you are being nano-manipulated, both from the outside and the inside...the issues for us are PRIVACY-based...and even the so-called opposition knows it because they are learning to adjust the wording of the laws they advocate for."
Usually, you don´t reply to Saddlebum, why it tha? Maybe because you´re literally rendered speechless when actual people with actual experience in life, in a zoo life, with animals, point out all the rubbish you´re typing. Being such a loudmouth, have you been moving to Texas or any other state with an impending "anti zoo" law so you can legally influence the commision´s decision? No? Well, I thought so...always talking from behind the screen, with nothing to lose but the infantile delusions about a "just" world is comparably easier than walking in front row, expecting the opponents´ baseball bat in your face every second. You´re blinded, man, blinded by reading too much of that "pro zoo" bullshit propaganda. Go get yourself some real experience, then we can talk about all of that shabangabang...but if you, a complete "zoo virgin" are believing that you understand zoophilia better than someone who actually lives his life in this fashion for nearly 3 decades now, you surely aren´t lacking the guts to become a skydiving instructor without jumping out the airplane even once yourself. What you know is theory. Nothing more, nothing less....in theory, things are easy. In actual life, they´re not. Stop trying to make "legal" beasty happen. And to anyone else reading: THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAN TO SHAPE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR YOUR QUADRUPED PARTNER AND YOU THAT MINIMISES ANY RISK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Use your friggin´ heads for thinking instead of your dicks. Leave the trousersnake inside when there is even the slightest chance of unwanted "interruptions". That´s absolutely not "zoo magic", that´s damn simple as fuck.There´s no right for sex, but there are rights to privacy. Focus on them instead chasing a phantom you never be able to grasp. No one really cares where you put your dick into as long as you don´t make ´em care by stupidity or carelessness. Would you jump out of a plane if you´re not 100% sure the parachute is packed the right way? NO? Why are you so enthusiastic about literally doing the same thing when you "zoo"? Who´s to blame when some stranger or family member walks in on you, authorities? Or is it your own, stupid, goddamn mistake? Don´t expect this world to be one made exclusively for your entertainment and easy life. Life is a struggle. Learn to fight in the right occasions, but learn to evade a fight if it´s useless. Man up, nobody promised us zoos life would be a pleasant ferris wheel ride...in fact, life is one of those hardcore rollercoasters...and not using the provided safety mechanisms that you were told to use by the rollercoaster employees and your fellow customers won´t make your whine and complaints any more legit. Responsibility, have you heard about it? ;)
No rational person who "recognizes limited resources" will say such methods give the best results. You get mediocre results instead of none. And in situations which impact people's lives and reputations, I'd say mediocre results are not good enough.
Furthermore, if the resources are limited, why apply them to this particular problem, which - if abusive - is already covered?
So consider it rape until proven okay? Punish people with severe sentences without knowing they're doing anything wrong?
Sure, perhaps it represents people who were abusing animals for thrills in the mid 20th century. What do you suppose the population size of zoophiles, per se, would have been in that study? Therefore how relevant do you think the results are to that infinitesimal, perhaps totally unrepresented group?
(Note how this gets back into the importance of definitions.)
Without analyzing the particular study you have in mind, I can't be more specific, but if it's the one I'm thinking of from 50-60 years ago, it certainly suffers from poorly-corrected selection/sampling bias and an insufficiently comprehensive research instrument. Responses, and therefore conclusions would then be inadequate to extrapolate to the community of people we here colloquially call "zoophiles." If it's a newer study, please share.
This is a well-documented concern in studying human populations. Perhaps primary research in biology is more mathematical/analytical and randomization is inherently better.
Assuming for a moment that journal publication equals validity, which it doesn't (especially in "criminal psychology" which is the intersection of two pretty subjective fields), a study meant to show X might do so very well, but that has nothing to do with how it also shows Y. I am so far unaware of a study that specifically attempts to look at "zoophiles" but again, perhaps you can share the example you have in mind and we can look.
There is also an issue called "confirmation bias", in which a researcher sees only what they want to see. In the case of "criminal psychology" professionals, they likely pick and choose the data that suits them, and only see the negative aspects of zoo.
Context is important: "it does give the best results relative to the amount of work put in". You're still looking at a criminal offense that is so narrow that the 'best' results wouldn't help at all in the grand scheme of things(How many people get caught in the US each year for this, specifically? A few dozen, maybe?), and whose consequences are mild enough that a false positive doesn't cause much harm anyway. Murder gets that kind of research and you have entire homicide units dedicated to the crime because it's a big deal. Much as people here might like to doomspeak about being hunted, there's little outstanding research going into catching sexual abuse on nonhuman animals. Homicides are common and severe though, so it makes sense to allocate a great amount of resources to them. People can face life in prison for murder, and many do. In this case though, no matter how many false positives there are, the number of convictions/fines they represent are like a pinhead compared to most other crimes.
On the issue of 'best'... You can spend 30 years creating an ornate toothpick with the utmost care, featuring profound motifs and engravings whose attention to detail can only be rivalled by a technological approach... but it's still just a toothpick, and you won't get a return large enough to make up for the time you put in. That's the idea of law enforcement. There's no use creating detailed motifs and engravings on a toothpick if there isn't even that much demand for toothpicks(or in this case, very many cases). Instead, so long as the toothpick is functional and sturdy enough for general use, the toothpick doesn't need any more time dedicated to it. The time or technology you'd be dedicating to making detailed toothpick art could be more economically placed elsewhere.
The resources that are limited are the ones relating to determining abuse. Law enforcement can't determine that accurately even if they catch them in the act, nor would they wait long enough to take notes from the shadows. Better to have a false positive than to let a future criminal or psychopath go, especially when such incidents are so narrow in scope as it is.
Remember, too, that interspecies sex is considered abuse, manipulation, coercion, etc right now; the idea of a dog or a horse or what have you enjoying intimate contact with that of a human isn't widely recognized yet, not even among academics. We have some empirical evidence for it, but not enough to completely clear zoophiles objectively.
More relevant than nil. Acting on limited datasets isn't a new thing. Heuristics are used by law enforcement habitually because it's more efficient even if it isn't the 'best' approach as it relates to investigation quality. Imagine if every homicide investigator said "Welp, we have this evidence that might connect Pete to the crime,but it might also implicate Paula so we can't use that evidence to convict him".
I'm fairly certain it's newer, but I didn't record where i found it. I spent about an hour trying to find it again, to no avail. If it resurfaces, which it normally does eventually, I'll drop the doi for it.
It is more analytical, but that carries with it limitations as well. You aren't given any room to make assumptions in general biology. Goodall's ordeal comes to mind again. Intuition is one of those things that aren't allowed in biology, for better or worse.
I tend to stick with peer reviewed journals. While by no means perfect, the bar is set significantly higher than some of the rags out there. I want to say that they used statistical analysis to look at their results, which basically means that statistically significant results are determined methematically rather than by human discretion.I'd have to check to see if they used T analysis specifically, which they should have, but I'm fairly certain they used some form of statistical analysis. T testing is just the most reliable, I've seen.
I think we are at the "agree to disagree" point, as I still disagree but have nothing further to add or clarify based on your feedback.
To conclude: Better than "more than nil" evidence should be used when making something explicitly illegal, when known-harmful cases of it are already illegal.
I agree with this -- if animal cruelty is already illegal, then making a law solely to ban sex with animals is to discriminate against a minority, as well as violate their due process (by not including the people who are affected in the discussion of such bills).
What about a non-human animal's ability to have "informed consent" to be spayed/neutered? What about an animal's "informed consent" when it is hunted, or slaughtered for food? Slaughtering isn't necessary because people can get sustenance from other means.
There may be "studies" which link zoo with violence, but there is a sample selection bias in those studies, a bias based on a sample selection which does not accurately represent zoos in general. Thus, those studies are flawed.
The same tenet that allows human parents to choose their hermaphrodite baby's gender, or get their child circumcised, or remove that third thumb growing out of their forearm, and lets them feed them at their own discretion, and allows them to handle accounts in their children's name. Mother knows best, as they say. That normally only extends into adolescence, but it's considered a constant for nonhuman animals, since they aren't observed to have the capacity to give informed consent. The idea is that the loss of agency is worth the benefits, and in the case of spaying/neutering, it kind of is sometimes, even if there are slightly better solutions.
Like I said before, "Spaying/neutering/slaughtering is categorized differently, as items of necessity to prevent overpopulation and for sustenance. Sex is not a necessary evil, in the eyes of the public". You could be living on peanut butter and bread, but that doesn't change what other people believe to be necessary. Most people, myself included, find meat to be an ideal part of their diet. Unlike eggs(which would be my go-to alternative), meat is a reliable protein source, but doesn't inhibit iron absorption, for instance.
This whole thing is a dead end, really, because it never convinces anyone, and it won't begin to(I fear this reads as "you let these evils happen, so what's it gonna hurt to add this one to the pile?" to an anti). As a side note, can't wait for meat cultures to take off and diversify.
Just found the resource I read. It was a literature review, meaning it compiled data from many different studies. There were surveys, clinical studies, etc. It compared a survey done on previously incarcerated individuals and non-offenders, iirc. The results of the survey clarified that there was a disproportionately high number of inmates that had committed violent crimes that also committed bestiality, and there was a correlation with schizophrenia in another(which was unsurprising to me, given the effects of the disorder). The sample can't really be biased because none of the subjects in either survey were actually selected for sexual attraction to nonhuman animals. Nobody really broadcasts it except for the ones convicted of it.
While it make be true that that's how the public sees it, that doesn't mean that view is logical or reasonable. If anything, ignoring "informed consent" in one instance and needing it another is hypocrisy.
Still, it's not necessary. People don't have to eat meat, and they can get protein from non-meat sources. And one could argue that it isn't ideal (i.e. the whole "factory farm" argument, animals suffering/exploited/being killed in order to become people's food, the environmental toll, the health argument, etc.) Does an animal have a right to live out its life in the same way that a human does? But that's a question for a different thread.
What do you think would be a better pro-zoo argument?
It is biased, and it does have a sample selection problem, because of the fact that prisoners were used in the study. The study should not have focused on atypical people. Those kinds of studies give people the impression that all zoos are violent, which isn't true.
Yeah, well, it's what you have to contend with. The ideal is nice, but we need to work with the public, and that means, right now, looking at what is true to them and working with the system, rather than trying to make a new one, so to speak. Note though, that they think the same thing about your positions.
Well, it's not just protein, there are a number of nutrients that are exclusive to meat. The reason why vegan cultures are only cropping up now is because it won't literally kill us now, because you can supplement the vitamins that plants can't produce. But, that's neither here nor there.
Again, comparative study. It compared prison and clinically insane populations with surveyed civilians. The civilians were the control group, and neither survey was hunting zoos in particular. The study was published in a journal of justice and criminal psychiatry, so it would follow that its focus would be on criminals and the criminally insane. I'll say that the conclusions people use against the likes of the people here are weaker than the directed applications of the study, but those conclusions are still valid. It doesn't mean that some overwhelming quantity of zoophiles are criminals, and the people qualified to parse those studies would be aware of that.
Still, paraphilias play a role in criminal psychology, and the goal of the study was to enhance our perspective on the criminal mind, which it did, to their credit. Hell, there are some pretty compromising studies on a condition I have too, but I know that the real issue is scale.A difference of incarceration rates of a percent or two within my population isn't that big of a deal, all in all. To clarify, 7% is the avg probability of a normal person being incarcerated.
I'd be interested to see how those surveys defined such things as zoophilia, though.
Homosexuality was once viewed as a paraphilia, about 50 years ago. Does that mean that what is now referred to as "zoophilia" will eventually be recognized as a sexual orientation eventually?
Does that mean pedophilia will be an orientation eventually? There's no comparison intended beyond the shared circumstance, but that's shaky reasoning for it.
I think it will be acknowledged as an orientation at some point, yes, but not by virtue of precedence, and not for another few decades, at least... barring some other advancements.
Curiously, animal pornography was never really brought up in the legislative discussion of the anti-zoo bill in New Hampshire a year ago (though the new law in NH does ban the making/distribution of animal pornography). The discussion in NH was very one-sided and entirely from the anti point-of-view (like saying that all sex with animals is "sexual assault", saying it is always "cruelty", saying animals can't "consent", saying that people who have sex with animals are likely to be "violent offenders", etc.) They explicitly mentioned Beast Forum. They also spent lots of time trying to protect farming interests. By the way, animals don't "consent" to be hunted or spayed/neutered, but that (of course) wasn't brought up.
To counter that, Zeta is run by zoophiles. While it is pro zoo it can't get the same good public standing that the humane society can. Whatever organizations that decide to work on the behalf of zoophiles would need good public standing and massive resources as well... which I understand ZETA lacks.
That said, no organization's impact could start in congress or the house in the US. These bills have bipartisan support(enough, in many cases, to permit a mountain of riders) for a number of reasons, I'll concede, but it's not just because of fencehopping and porn. Representation of zoophilia is lopsided toward simple bestialists and zoosadists, but perhaps the problem is that there's no other voice to carry authority on the behalf of zoophiles. ZETA, for all its good efforts was doomed to flounder from its inception, trying to garner trust for zoos by acting as their own agents. HSUS has the advantage of appearing to 'work for the animals'. ZETA... no matter what they did, they'd still be painted as a zoo organization first, humanitarian efforts be damned.
But we're at an impasse right now. There are no animal rights/aid/charity groups that seem so much as ambivalent to zoos. I suspect it is in part because there's nothing they can point to as justification for it. HSUS doesn't need that since everyone agrees with them, but a scientific study that distinctly verifies the safety of human sexual interaction with nonhuman animals being safe for both parties physically and/or psychologically would be perfect for more neutral organizations to latch onto. That's another nail in ZETA's coffin. There may be some stuff that we can tangentially relate to zoophilia, but we don't have anything that looks specifically at the 'it' of the issue we want to defend. It makes sense that it would be difficult to find a good sample for this, but it still hurts our progress on the front of activism.
It'd help if we had an animal behaviorist on hand.
It would be helpful if a non-zoo organization with a lot of money could help support zoos (for example, the ACLU); but when a Florida man was arrested for having sex with a horse in Florida, he tried to contact the Florida ACLU to help him out but he never got a response. Similarly the New Hampshire ACLU did nothing to stop that state's new anti-zoo law; for example they did not file a lawsuit challenging it.
The fact that zoos have no major organizations helping them, zoo-related or otherwise, is damaging them tremendously in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. It also isn't good when legislatures in various states have only anti-zoos testify for a bill and thus have an anti-zoo bias.
Bills should always have a pro- and anti- discussion involved, IMO. If you only have someone arguing for a bill, that doesn't inform legislators the way they need to be informed to make a proper decision. I guess we're not to that point in society yet, though.
In New Hampshire last year (with their anti-zoo bill), the discussion was all anti-zoo (zero pro-zoo discussion).
There is no "behalf of zoophiles" because people can't even consistently define what a zoophile is.
I still am not seeing why it matters in the legal sense whether someone is a "zoophile" or "simple bestialist," whatever that even is. It may matter in ethics or morality, but laws are supposed to protect one's safety, property, and peace of mind, not morality.
Research on the topic has been done, is being done, and I'm sure will continue to be done, so I think that portion of the discussion is just a matter of time.
Legally, you're right. Morality shouldn't have a place there (though I think that much of the law is based in ethics and that enforcing ethics as represented in an empirical sense is ideal). But the law is kind of like Reddit's upvote system. Barring extreme circumstances and lobbying, people and legislators end up voting with their heart. A zoophile is a much more approachable facet of the topic than a bestialist. The 'walking dildo' stigma is a real concern, even if it isn't true, but it's weaker with a narrative predicated on romance. Framing the issue as a representation for zooromantics like star crossed lovers is a prettier face that people are more inclined to support, and it's not a falsity by any measure. In an ideal world we could present things as they are and you'd get proper legislative representation, but we're in a position where dressing it up might be the only sustainable thing to do... for the time being, at least.
Well, I think it depends on how hot the issue gets(to clarify, yes it's an eventuality, but it could be set back by years or even decades). A controversial study can make a career in scientific research, or it can bring ruin. If these studies draw too much heat for one reason or another, and they will, researchers might not be able to get funding in the future. Studies distinctly affirming what would benefit the zoosex argument would be subjected to more thorough scrutiny as well.
Things have gotten better, but the circumstances that led to the shitstorm that the likes of Jane Goodall had to deal with? They're still here, and I feel safe saying that those same circumstances will have repercussions for bestiality studies or what have you. I don't think Christian scientists (as an example) will be waving their rosaries at the studies, but they'll be more than eager to rip into the slightest faults in them, and the media will latch onto the sour reviews, not the studies(or the media will create their own positively enlightened criticisms). It'll still be an immense help, but we can't say it'll stop being in the air for anyone.
The criticisms don't even have to be that strong, either. Imagine the brimstone when you don't record cortisol levels while tracking an animal's vitals during an experiment attempting to look at whether there is any trauma caused during interspecies coitus, or when it increases slightly more than in human models. People. Will. Tear. Into. That. Shit. The pettiest things, and they will be damn convincing to your average skeptic when they do. Hell, I've done it too. It's a great way to discredit or change the narrative of a source without even putting any effort in. Skim, find a variable they didn't address, say why it's confounding, or compare part of the results to another study and say "Welp, these don't match, and this earlier study was replicated several times", then follow through with a narrative that turns the results of the study in your favor, if you think you can. It's... more common than I care to admit. I try to avoid it now, myself, but a good chunk of the science community isn't above doing it, and with an expansive topic like this, they could reduce a study's range of influence to that of a pinhead, comparatively.
That's kind of the 'doomspeaker' side of things, but I think the core idea is still pretty valuable. It's important that the early supportive studies are ironclad, because bestiality still isn't a popular topic of study outside of criminal psychology, and even the science community at large is against it. Turns out, science is little less subject to politics than any other persuasion
There's a difference between how you present a law, and the contents of that law. I'm not disputing it could be framed one way or another to be more sympathetic. I'm saying the words you're operating with are not clear in anyone's mind, including the minds of actual zoophiles. Case in point, by some people's view, you're not a zoophile UNLESS you're a bestialist (literally, that you have sex with animals).
Putting a charismatic, well-spoken "boy next door" (or better still, girl next door) in front of a camera with a sympathetic story may help, but playing it up too much turns creepy, quickly. You don't want people seeing you as not only an animal rapist, but a delusional one.
I agree, you are "doomspeaking." Any change is attacked, and that's fine. Why not welcome feedback that will help you build an even better argument?
I think you were replying to a point in another comment but yeah, this is true. I err on the side of 30-30 as it relates to public depictions so I do think things need to be 'real', but having people that know what's not okay to say and that don't look like an extreme closeup in Spongebob would help.
We(Well, technically you but we is easier at this point) won't be getting attacked, though. The researchers and their studies will be... and if they can't get grants anymore because of a study they publish getting really, really bad press, that's not just feedback to welcome, it can also be a massive setback. It doesn't happen terribly often, but it happens, and it does so quietly. Building an argument and publishing a study are two very different things... and that's assuming you can find a journal willing to publish it that isn't little more than a rag.
I'm an animal behaviorist. That's why I know nothing is going to change unless we activate the "Buy one get one free" coupon.
Otherwise there's nothing in it for them. They want our semen, our mouth and our children for themselves and if we can't give them the rebate they won't buy it.
I meant one that recieved a formal education. You know, one that is credible to the science community. One that publishes scientific studies in peer reviewed journals. Still waiting for you to publish a study in one. Not trying to be mean or anything, but self proclaimed scientists aren't helpful.
Formal as in paid for but not earned? I don't trust credibility entitled by cash payments to institutions with other agendas. I trust real experience from people who get around and move around outside of their boxes, big houses and private campuses.
To be completely honest with you, this isn't rocket science. In fact you don't have to be a scientist to understand any of this. If we have to reach that far into the bucket to find the answers then there is definitely a major problem with humanity.
OK. Why shouldn't you trust formal educations on sociological topics? - Since the private or "formal" educations are not open to the complete public demographic, they do not offer knowledge of much outside of their required formalities. As far as sociology is concerned you should not trust anything that allows only certain special people to speak while denying others. That's called censorship. Technically, Id be censored because I don't meet your personal requirements of a "formal education" or "pay to publish" material.
"Formal" in other words, is a nice way to say fancy. However it is lacking functional versatility. Has a lot of nick nacks, bells and whistles but it's so false and distracting. Formalities are essentially luxuries for an isolated population. These Isolationist educations teach nothing more than they offer and they offer nothing more than they see fit. You pay a heavy price to be so special.
Out of good faith I will not do that and I'll just keep hoping you and the other closeted, boxed up robots with extensive "likenesses" - the same demographic - can see past your packing- the lack of versatility in the absence of dollar signs and gold nuggets and will understand the things I'm trying to tell you.
I understand it would help if just handed some stranger my life savings and said "hey, turn my water into wine." Probably, but then it wouldn't be the truth. I'd be trying to gain more viewers with lies to make up for it.
Therefore, if you want opinions from other educational isolationists you'll never see the truth no matter how much they spent or how much they speak. It's nothing more than a sugar coating for the things they do not know and chose not to know.
I'm not going to publish anything until people earn a real understanding to understand what I'm trying to say before wasting any time or money creating publications that people refuse to read and learn from because it doesn't taste like the way momma cooked it, or look like everyone else's.
Maybe my words would mean more to an audience that didn't fall off a production line. You know? Would you jump off a bridge of somebody with a formal education or publication told you to?
Thing is, I didn't pay for college. I got a free ride, through scholarships. It's not terribly hard when you're dedicated to the craft, and alot of the work I've been doing lately is very open ended. All I had to pay for was housing and food, but I'd be paying for that anyway. And my education is WAY more expensive without scholarships than an animal behaviorist(BTW, animal behaviorists =/= sociologists) would be paying without them. Financial aid is there for everybody in the US, and just about anyone can reap the benefits from them. You read like someone who's never been to a university. The only reason your average person wouldn't be able to get a degree on the cheap is if they weren't able to put the time in, chose not to, or didn't adapt to the dynamic rigors of each course.
Even then, there are a number of free or nearly free services that allow you to rack up ACE recognized credits -- Essentially, real college credits to apply toward a degree. Coursera, Udacity, and Edx come to mind.
Colleges aren't greedy, and dozens of colleges are offering course material or educational material online now. MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Columbia U, Duke, Emory, Harvard, Open U, Oxford, Penn State, Seton Hall, Princeton, Pepperdine, Stanford, UCLA(They have a stunning collection btw), Berkely, U of Michigan, U of Chicago, U of SoCal, Vanderbilt, and too many others for me to list here. This material contains tens of thousands of hours of lectures and educational materials that can be used to get an edge while getting a degree, and getting scholarships. Many universities offer a discount just by seeing a strong academic history, too. They want students that will succeed, and yeah, they'll charge you out the ass if you're getting C's or D's consistently. But if you show that you're dedicated to mastering it and have the faculties to back it up? They'll make sure you get that degree, come hell or high water.
Thats the problem exactly. Is this whole zoophilia thing really so complicated that people have to resort to waiting for and psychotically expecting a major scientific breakthrough at highly decorated universities? Either people are so severely stupid - braindead - or they just like to waste time and resources to make themselves look very super special. It's like I said before, you don't have to be a scientist to understand the concepts. You don't have to be a professional animal trainer to be a good zoo. This isn't rocket science, it's hardly a science at all. There's no formal education, magic, degrees, certifications, extensive research or permissions from God required.
Honestly. I'm not going to let these blood sucking institutions hold my sexuality, freedom of speech or freedom of facts ransom.
If those schools were really worth the time and money and allowed "real" people to succeed beyond the institutions expectations, these laws might not have been passed in the first place.
There is an obvious flaw in their own system if the people joining and graduating these schools are all "the same" and have "the same" feeling regarding zoophilia. Is the staff teaching people to be this way? Is it the students, very slimly differing because they belong to similar unyielding pompous backgrounds?
Let's face it. There are very VERY few pro-zoophilia scholars in the public for a reason. They are suppressed, denied, and usually somehow sabotaged before they can actually make something worthwhile of it. There's always some idiot excuse to say NO to common sense.
What is it going to take until people figure out common sense? Proof? Consent? Angels to fall from the heavens? Democracy and a vote? A major 300 page five book report on the physics, chemistry, mathematics, grammar and a historical timeline of sex with animals? Are people that stupid? I almost want to smash them in the head with a hammer so I can look inside and see what the hell is wrong with them.
I frown upon all these Universities who accept and give entitlements to terrible people who use the name of the degree to destroy other people's lives, sexualities or otherwise so they can rush in with their innovations and fake scientific breakthroughs. It's complete crap. Nobody should have to figure any of this out.
Please, name any more Universities that do not deserve their recognition. They're just status symbols for pigs, parasites, retards and "educated" gangsters now. Just like horse ownership and just like zoophilia is becoming.
They don't ask, nor do they care. As long as you don't start shit, they don't start shit. That's my experience. You can disagree with every professor, and they'll allow it so long as you're making meaningful statements and contributions and aren't causing excessive loss of instruction time.
They expect you to master the content enough that you can understand the concepts you'd be putting into practice, with authority. Universities are trending toward more standardized educational standards as well... meaning it's inching closer to a global expectation of what you need to master.
And frankly, the bar is set pretty low.
Uh, am I suddenly not someone with a college education or something? My family is quite wealthy as well. I certainly didn't grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I was well off. There was actually a series of studies on this. They found that while wealthier individuals were less compassionate, they were more utilitarian and would often be more inclined to take actions that had a greater net benefit even if it constituted harm or went against their personal feelings.
Have you ever heard of the trolley problem? Basically, it's a dilemma where you can push a fat man off a ledge to stop an out of control trolley, or you could do nothing and leave it to crash into a crowd just ahead. You can save many lives, at the cost of taking a life, or you can do nothing. That's one of the dilemmas that researchers used to evaluate it. They found that wealthier individuals were statistically more willing to take that life than less wealthy individuals. It was found that they focused more on the consequences than the act. The study controlled for gender, wealth, and ethnicity and found no significant deviation
... Have you tried? If you're half as smart as you say you are, you'd be getting scholarships left and right. You'd definitely have a very strong shot at getting in and dropping your revolutionary studies on academic journals and the public.
Fraternities make things cheaper, though... and they're not normally associated with wealth. Frats tend to collectively own housing nearby that can be used by undergraduates. Sometimes you have to pay rent at reduced cost, while other frats don't, sometimes. The more asinine vetting practices you see, though, are the minority.
They don't care that much, actually. Zoophiles are perceived as a threat by practically nobody, least of all executives. Zoos are in the background, okay? You see things cropping up every once in a while, but you don't see people trying to put chastity belts on their dogs when they take them out at night. There isn't a conspiracy, and there certainly isn't that much fear.
More universities that offer services for free, you mean. They don't benefit from publishing that stuff online, and I'll have you know that most people go to ivy league schools and colleges for the experience, not the degree. They want to actually get shit done, and... those expensive schools? They chew you up, and if you can't take it, they spit you out. They will not take money, nor applications, from someone that they think will shirk the efforts of their faculty or won't benefit from their instruction. I've been to one of the schools on that list, and I'll tell you one thing: there's nobody there that went in for the status. Those people would sooner die than accept a degree when they didn't think they earned it, same goes for me.
At any rate, when was the last time you remembered the name of a researcher? You might remember about a dozen or so contemporary researchers off the top of your head, but probably not much more. Research is not a path to fame, nor is it lucrative in many cases. There are exceptions, like in my field, but we also tend to dump a ton of our funds back into individual research when the grants just won't cut it, and that money can number in the millions at the end of a career. Dedicated back into our jobs, instead of a nice house, or our retirement, or that $17 cup of coffee. Believe it or not, people get degrees to make contributions to their fields. I could be in the lap of luxury, but that's not what I want. Few of us ever do.
"One by one, all of the states in the US are becoming anti-zoo"...that is ridiculous. With or without a law banning sex with animals, getting caught will definitely turn your world into a mess in every state and nation of the world. With a law, the consequences are more severe, I´ll give you that; but not a single nation or a single state has "turned" into "anti-zoo".
Regarding HSUS lobbying: say, can it be you´re not against lobbying ´cause you´d surely be one of the first celebrating lobbyism , dancing naked in the streets, if it´s a "pro zoo" lobbying for legal animal sex, right? Not the method, but the goal, right?
While I apprectiate being kept up to date on the worldwide legal situation, your trademark whining won´t help our cause at all. Yeah, the world is against us and life for a zoo is harder than it has to be. But we won´t change anything with constant complaints about the "unjust" society and about lobbyism.
Really, Skg..., is it that hard to realise most of the recently issued laws against sex with animals are an immediate result of either actual incidents (Enumclaw, for example) or the general public image of the "animal fucker" crowd online. These laws aren´t coming out of nowhere.
Fact is: our scene has mutated into a self-obsessed monster. And unlike in the nineties, this monster is constantly visible for anyone. Pornography shapes Average Joe´s perspective on "zoophilia" more than anything else. Prejudices are affirmed when another "animal sex friend´s " computer gets seized and kiddie porn is discovered, when another fencehopper gives fist hand evidence of a "zoo´s" lack of self control, when another abusive animal porn flic is uploaded to BF. I surely don´t like being criminalised, but to a certain degree, I can absolutely understand why so many nations and states consider it necessary to make laws against sex with animals. Too many can´t properly deal with the responsibilities involved, that´s it.Every single case of fencehopping, every single "amateur" animal pornographer caught is justifying the existence of the laws. And that´s the bottom line.
Stop being purposedly blind for the reasons behind the laws, man. And stop saying "...but these are only some isolated, singular cases"...´cause we both know they´re not.Without change in OUR community, we´ll be sliding down the downward spiral faster and faster...
While I agree with your assertion that laws against animal sex are unlikely to have a negative impact on the daily life of the zoophiles affected, I beg to differ with your attitude towards our community. In my opinion, you tend to overrate the relevance of zoophilia to the general public. Judging by the most frequented online forums – Zoophiles Forum and this subreddit on an international level or tlover in Germany, this "scene", which has allegedly "mutated into a self-obsessed monster" is insignificant. Take, for instance, r/zoophilia – I bet you'll find more active users on a random, let's say, Austrian Harley Davidson enthusiasts' forum, than here on this subreddit. Considering reddit's popularity and the fact that by 2015, the English language had over 300 million native speakers, there should be hundreds of comments each day instead of a handful based upon your image of the zoo community. In fact, it's quite the opposite – none of the forums I mentioned generates significant traffic and unless BF, which I don't have first-hand information on, has a truly large number of active participants, I feel confident to conclude that there is no such thing as a homogenous, international community. Thus, what leads you to believe that the actions of such a limited number of people could have an effect – be it positive or negative – on the politics of nations as large as Germany (>80 million inhabitants) or the USA (>300 million inhabitants)? With regards to your home country, do you believe that the latest amendment to the German Tierschutzgesetz, which introduced a ban on sex with animals in 2012, was issued due to cases of fencehopping or the prevalence of AP on the internet? In fact, the whole process leading to this ban was initiated by a vocal minority of anti-zoo activists who came up with unsubstantiated claims about the existence of animal brothels, with fake statistics and stories of cruelty against animals which were soon adopted by the media. In reaction to these campaigns, the political elite seized the opportunity to create a win-win situation: On the one hand, it goes without saying that a ban on sex with animals is an incredibly popular measure which is effortlessly implemented – zoophilia is a marginal phenomenon which makes it very unlikely for a political party or a lobby group to advocate for the rights of this minority. On the other hand, it distracted the media and the public from how insufficient and unsatisfying the rest of the amendment was from an animal rights perspective. Indeed, while the political process received broad media coverage, the focus was almost exclusively on the animal sex issue and substantial concerns voiced by animal rights advocates remained unheard. Thus, taking into account what happened in 2012, I don't see how the zoophile community could have had a significant impact on these political processes.
BeastForum is by far the largest and most influential (no comparison), and it's infamous on newssites. /r/zoophilia is probably second most influential if porn sites are excluded, but it's a distant second, and afaik no article's ever mentioned it.
First, you totally exaggerate the role of the antis in the process to outlaw sex with animals. For example, in Germany there have been plans to re-illegalise sex with animals since 2008/2009, with no organised "anti" scene around. In Denmark, the antis, especially those from Op Beast, even claimed their victory even though the government initialised the process of outlawing sex with animals long before Op Beast or "antis" were a thing. Don´t fall for the mystification so common in this community. The antis only contributed a very little part to the new laws. If you take your time and search for Silke Lautenschläger´s article about the "bestiality scene", you´ll surely come across this one, peculiar phrase explaining the reason behind the increased pressure on the so called "zoophile" scene. Lautenschläger says that what once was a tolerable sexual deviation mostly "committed" in the privacy of one´s home has now, in the age of the internet, become an "online sex cult" that is, with all of the negative issues like animal pornography and the large profits made with it by the international illegal porn mafia, the increasing violence (although this may be a general human problem in the age of general progressing dehumanisation) ,...well, she basically said that things now have become so bad , the authorities had no choice but to react to what can be witnessed in forums like BF and such. Please stop seeing all "zoos" as saints and all who are not outright friendly towards fucking animals as demons, things are way more complicated than that.
You also ask me what leads me into thinking that a "few" bad apples shape the entire picture of zoophilia...well, since we´re a small minority, each and every person serves as an ambassador for this orientation. What one does will inevitably be transferred onto us all. And that sadly includes the beasties and their conduct. For society, every animal fucker is a "zoophile" and thus, those lots of "few" bad examples that are drawn through the media every week legitimately shape a quite appropriate picture of "zoophilia".
By the way: the German law against sex with animals became effective in July 2013. Asked where they got the information about "zoophilia" from, MP Goldmann, the FDP member and leading force behind the "zoophilia" ban, responded that the entire group had researched the topic by using the internet as a soure amongst other, more reliable ones. Cases of fencehopping definitively helped finding reasons to outlaw "zoophilia" ...even if it only is meant as a deterrence for the "try outs" and won´t , as Goldmann also mentioned, keep all zoophiles from sleeping with their animals. I´m pretty much sure that all those lawmakers are aware of the fact that laws cannot and will not lead to a "zoo free" earth. To summarise it: Goldmann, the chairman of the "ban zoophilia" group, said it himself that certain cases of fencehoppers and the overall picture our community gives through the internet (with sites like BF) contributed lots to the new laws. Lautenschläger also emphasized on how different the recent "zoo scene" is from the "zoo scene" of the nineties. With all due respect, but you really need to open your eyes, mate. There are problems in our community, starting with the evergreen "What is zoophilia and what isn´t?", going through the whole animal porn issue and not even ending at "Is fencehopping in any shape or form acceptable?". These unsolved issues of our community have a severe impact on our public image...one single person defending fencehopping, for example, will make it look like not a single animal that´s kept outside is safe from us "zoos".
Yeah, sure, society also fucks up in dealing with us unwanted freaks, but that should never lead to partial blindness on purpose. Our community does everything to remain hated and nothing to improve our public image. Where are the zoophile initiatives against animal exploitation through animal porn, where is the clear and loud statement that fencehopping never is okay?
What really is our problem as a community: we don´t speak with one voice. If one zoophile says that he despises fencehopping, the next one could have a "slightly different" opinion. We have no common policies we pursue, we haven´t even the same ideas about how a zoo tolerant world would be like. Basically, everyone speaks for himself....defines "zoophilia" for himself, sets "ethical" limits for himself....how should we ever be able to negotiate with society that way? Our ethical guidelines are non existent and the zeta rules , already known to but a small percentage of all "zoos", are often "interpreted" as soon as the pants are unzipped.
Even if society would be reaching out, we would slap off the offered hand...like we do since this whole shitfest of "online zoophilia" started. We can´t even agree on the sole definition of our orientation, how are we supposed to get anything done in our favour? The problem lies deep within our own community and as long as "we" zoophiles are nothing more than a wild bunch of strict individualists unable to agree even on the most basic issues, our opponents always will have the upper hand. It´s really as simple as that. No "anti zoo" conspiracy, no "unjust" and "hateful" conservative society...just ourselves fucking up even in the most basic and fundamental principles of political work. And don´t forget the simple fact that one abusive animal porn flic, one case of fencehopping will undermine a hundred educational pages about zoophilia. If we only were able to speak with one voice, maybe things wouldn´t be going down the drain , as usual...but who knows? I doubt we as a community will ever become adult enough to realise a few things about us, ourselves and our community...but without that process of self reflection, things will get worse.
Is the problem that we don't agree on one definition, or that it isn't YOUR definition? :)
Discussion seems to be focusing on fencehopping as an example, but what about being exclusive or not? Does that really affect one's motives? In fact, do one's motives even matter so long as everyone buys into the activity?
Are "zeta rules" really important because they're zeta rules, or isn't it good enough to reach the same conclusions because certain things are just the right thing to do?
So now it is us? :)
Anyway, it is not "anti zoo" I agree, because nobody making those policies probably even knows what a zoophile is, but nevertheless there obviously are active forces pushing laws in that direction, and those active forces would not exist if not for society's misconceptions (about sex, consent, etc., not about "zoophiles" whatever that word even means).
See, now it´s MY definition again. Quod erat demonstrandum.
This bitching attitude (as seen with the introduction of the Zsactuary..." Oh my god, THEY´re doing something behind our backs and we´re NOT part of it!!OMG!!OMG!! I feel left out!?!") is what brings every potential progress to a screeching halt.
Your next question regarding exclusiveness: Yes, I believe exclusivity has a big influence on an individual´s personal attitude towards zoophilia. If animals are the "only option", you naturally take things a lot more seriously. You simply don´t have a "safety net" as an exclusive, getting caught and punished with a ban on keeping animals will definitely END your emotional and sex life once and for all. For exclusives, all is at stake and thus, exclusives tend to be more dedicated although I´ve seen some examples that totally oppose my statement. What really is detrimental are those among us who misunderstand zoophilia as a sexual playground with an "anything goes!" attitude included per se. From my experiences of coming out to a few friends, I can say that attitude matters mor than you might think. Your attitude may be the only one protecting you, the only one that lets your friend NOT pick up the phone immediately and call the police to arrest that "animal fucker".
It surely is good enough to draw similar conclusions for yourself as the zeta rules imply, but let´s be honest: how much importance have these rules in our scene? Does anyone care about them? Fact is that many "zoophiles" don´t even invest some energy in thinking about anything except "Where can I get some dog or horse ass?" It´s also a fact that the basic unregulated nature of "zoophilia"/bestiality is a huge turn on for a vast percentage of "zoophiles" and rules would spoil that "fun"...to be precise, as soon as you try to introduce some rules, so called "zoos" will immediately start complaining about the rules.
The so called "active forces" you mention are just a few people that don´t have enough influence to form legislation according to their will. What is true is that society doesn´t want us "animal fuckers" being so open and out in the public as we are. The so called "active forces" just hop onto that already existing bandwagon, nothing more, nothing less. Their influence is vastly exaggerated in every "zoo" forum....I guess living is simply more comfy and less thought provoking when you have a scapegoat you can put all the blame onto without any further introspection. It feel sooo comfy...or, as Volker Pispers, a German cabaret artist , has put it: " When you wake up in the morning and know exactly whom to hate, then your day at least has some structure." As long as we literally go applying for a job in the worst possible shape we could present ourselves in, stinking, drunk as fuck, unhinged, with lack of self control and respect even for those directly opposing us, things won´t change. But don´t take it from me, just take a look into "zoo history", learn what led us to the current point in history and analyse how ineffective is what has been done for more than two decades now. Exactly the convictions that our community upheld for so long now have brought us here, to this world that has outlawed "zoophilia" almost worldwide. How long until you all realise we´re obviously doing something very wrong here? The dim results can be seen daily, just take a look in your lawbook.
How bad does it need to get until you all get an epiphany? How bad until you wake up from your fantasy world?
Take it down a notch, please. I assume we all don't want this discussion to escalate, and we're actually on the verge of experiencing such a situation for the 10.001st time here on this forum. Spend some time with your mare(s), then reassess what infuriated you so much you felt the urge to formulate ad-hominem arguments. At least that's my strategy of dealing with anger and aggression in real life.
With regards to your reply to my initial comment, I can reassure you that I'm immune to any kind of mystification or inaccurate information from biased sources. While I don't recall the course of events which lead to the ban on sex with animals in Germany in full detail, I have to point out that back in 2013, I was quite well informed about the circumstances. Thus, I'm familiar with Lautenschläger's views, which I, of course, do not support. To get to the point, I'm not bothered at all by the fact that there is a ban on bestiality. The example of Austria clearly indicates that such a law has zero practical relevance – in fact, since the last amendment to the Austrian Tierschutzgesetz was passed in 2006, there has only been a handful of cases in which the respective paragraph was applied. The number of crimes related to §222 (cruelty against animals), in turn, amounts to about 6500 during the same period of time. Judging by this data, it is obvious that the ban on sex with animals has a merely symbolic value. Accordingly, what bothers me about the situation in Germany is rather the process than the outcome. While in Austria, the decision to outlaw sex with animals in 2006 remained unnoticed by the general public, Germany experienced an unprecedented wave of lobbyism, anti-zoo activism and media coverage of the subject, which persistently shaped the public image of zoophiles in this country more than the prevalence of animal porn on the internet. There were numerous articles on the matter in the most renowned German news papers, which took a stance against or condemned zoophilia based on unsubstantiated informations. I still recall a quite comprehensive interview with M. Kiok, the former head of ZETA in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, in which the author tried to refute Kiok's arguments by citing members of animal rights organizations. It goes without saying that the image of zoophilia that this article conveyed was disastrous and even if Kiok might be blamed for acting as unprofessional and nonreflective as the photo of him and his dog suggests, he would never have stood a chance against Nicola Siemers, founder of an activist group called "veterinaries against zoophilia and bestiality", whose statements were used to oppose Kiok's arguments. To draw a conclusion, I don't see myself as one of those who blame society for the miserable situation of the zoo community, nor do I demand acceptance of my sexual orientation from the general public. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the exceptional outbreak of hostility which German zoophiles have been facing from 2010 to 2013 might not be attributed to rational causes. Rather, it was an irrational, but well organized campaign issued by radical activist groups and individuals with the sole purpose of oppressing a sexual minority.
I didn't really follow it much, but I was under the impression that this "Zukunftsdialog" thing did have some influence with some antis meeting with Merkel in the end. At least the Heute Show has attributed the ban twice on it in recent times. But then the Heute Show really isn't good anymore (was it ever?) and only used it for cheap laughs.
Society shouldn't be blamed, but special-interest groups such as HSUS should. The groups and the campaigns they organize are, as you said, irrational. They are part of a frenzied "moral panic" against zoosex.
Zoos shouldn't need society's acceptance, but the criminalization of their way of life should not be tolerated.
And the outbreak you mentioned is an international one, and it is currently still happening, as demonstrated by the new bills in Vermont/Texas/Kentucky right now.
"Moral panic"? "Outbreak"?...boy, you´re not in this game for long enough to know how stuplidly wrong you are. All these new laws in the US can be traced back to Enumclaw and a twisted masochist that got killed by "zoophile practices". Again, these laws aren´t coming out of nowhere, they´re not irrational and a direct response to the picture we zoos/bestialists display on the internet. More than 95% of the AP clips are abusive...what should society think otherwise than "95% of those zoophiles are abusers and we must stop the abuse". Most of the "educational" websites dealing with zoophilia are, frankly said, total rubbish...that´s our dilemma...the negative things outnumber the positive things by far. And so it´s only logical that the authorities will try to intervene. The laws are a direct reaction to what our scene has become...as Lautenschläger correctly realised, the zoo scene in the nineties and the recent "zoo" scene are two totally unrelated and disconnected entities, what once was something harmless you predominantly did in the privacy of your home has now mutated into exhibitionism and self centered animal abuse. Things have become more "brutal" and "violent", that´s a fact. And if you cannot handle your freedom properly and responsibly, authorities will jump in at some point. That´s exactly what happened, nothing more , nothing less.
Several laws in the U.S. pre-date Enumclaw, such as Delaware's anti-zoo law (1993), Pennsylvania's anti-zoo law (1999), the anti-zoo laws of Illinois and Maryland (2002), and South Dakota (2003). It seems to have started around the same time sodomy laws were repealed, because then people suddenly felt it was necessary (for whatever reason) to make new laws replacing the old sodomy laws, but without homosexuality in it.
I have to agree with /u/Skgrsgpf on this one. The timeline lines up quite well with the gradual rise in support for homosexuality and gay marriage. Certainly Enumclaw started a bit of a domino effect, but it is not the only factor, I think.
Outwardly people laughed at the slippery slope of "what's next, marrying your dog?" but at some level I wonder if it's so far-fetched for some people to really think that.
And now the question is how, or if, the anti-zoo slide of the past and present can be reversed, so that zoosex isn't illegal anymore. Because things are looking pretty bad for zoo right now (legally).
They're banning bestiality? What's next? Marrying someone of the same sex?
You´re absolutely correct regarding the relative ineffectiveness of "anti zoo" laws. That´s, btw, what I am saying over and over again...the laws won´t affect you if you see your privacy as your top priority. In Germany, the picture isn´t any different since the new law was installed and ,as far as I know, not a single person has been facing a trial solely for violating the "anti zoophilia" paragraph.
It´s rather funny you mention the wave of newspaper interviews with "zoophiles" before, during and after the ban in 2013. Kiok, Burdinski, Zimmermann, all of them did their "best"...and "succeeded"...in affirming nearly all the usual prejudices the normals have towards "zoophiles". These interviews are probably the best evidence you can find backing me up in thinking that sometimes, no activism is better than bad activism. A lot of the turmoil created by the antis was owed to the fact that they had a visible "opponent", and one that isn´t exactly the smartest one around. Just take a look at how much time ZETA wasted fighting Carsten Thierfelder instead of doing what they are supposed to do as "das Sprachrohr und die Interessenvertretung der Zoophilen". Why do we still need enemies when a "pro zoo" organisation does more damage to pur public image than any anti could do? Yes, you´re right, the interviews with Kiok, Burdinski and Zimmermann shaped our public image, but I wouldn´t say that their efforts had a bigger influence on public opinion than the vast archives of animal porn out there.
Let me ask you what form of hostility is rational...isn´t all hostility per se irrational? And why is irrationality bad? Humans aren´t rational robots, FYI. See, that´s what I call living in a fantasy, living in "Wolkenkuckucksheim"...humans are rational AND irrational at the same time, according to the two brain hemispheres, logical and associative. By the way, our own community isn´t rational, too...a rational approach would be "Yes, folks, there are lots of grey areas in zoophilia that need to be sorted out. Denying and turning a blind eye for the problems within our orientation isn´t rational either, so we have to sit down and figure out compromises with society instead of shouting utopian demands that never will be met.
There´s no way the issued laws will be retracted anytime soon. I even think that the timespan between 1969 and 2013 , without any law prohibiting sex with animals was a historical singularity and surely helped escalating the entire situation until authorities said "That´s enough now".
My idea still is some form of regulation of zoophilia. The government has a right to know whether an animal is harmed physically or psychologically in a "zoo" relationship, so we´re not going anywhere demanding total freedom/legal zoophilia without a control mechanism that ensures the wellbeing of an animal living in a zoo relationship. The best we can hope for is regulated zoophilia under the supervision of authorities, with frequent unschedueled visits from a neutral (!) vet examining the animal. This would also generate a lot of relevant data, unlike Miletski´s collection of zoo fairy tales she didn´t even tried to validate before publication. We constantly complain about nonexistent reliable and relevant data of zoophilia...this would be a way to gather enough data to evaluate things differently than they´re evaluated now.
To sum it up: the "zoophiles" demand "legal zoophilia", but what they really mean is "Leave us alone!". Zoos claim "There´s not enough data to make scientifically correct statements about us zoophiles", but no one seems to be ready to fill the void with his own data. Zoophiles always demand, but aren´t ready to make compromises or take responsibility for their own or their group´s behaviour.
Let me ask you one thing: What if your government makes zoophilia legal today, but with strict restrictions such as "Only one animal", "No sexual contact with humans" and "With all duties and obligations that a "normal" relationship also brings"...? Violating these restrictions would result in revoking your "zoo license" immediately, turning you into an "illegal" again.
Just think about it for a while.
While it is true that the protagonists of the ZETA movement, especially Kiok and Burdinski, have invested considerable amounts of time in their project and have proven their exceptional commitment to advocating the rights of zoophiles, they have still failed to reach their goals mainly due to their lack of experience, their mediocre competence in public relations and their naivety. I totally agree with you on how miserably they failed to convey a positive image of zoophilia in the newspaper interviews. To me, it seemed like they faced these conversations relatively unprepared, meaning that they lacked a comprehensive strategy of dealing with the interviewer's questions. In fact, even if we put aside what they said, their outward appearance would have been enough to confirm the general public's image of a zoophile. Whenever I think of M. Kiok, an iconic photograph of him and his dog, which was published in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, comes to my mind. Thick glasses, unshaved, a worn out jacket – the prototype of an old, dirty pervert who has entered a sexual relationship with a bitch, because he can't find a human partner anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the ZETA movement would have needed a competent spokesperson in order to represent the interests of zoophiles in a sophisticated way. I'm not talking about a guy in a Brioni suit with, let's say, Dwayne Johnson's physique, George Clooney's winning smile and Pierce Brosnan's charm, for that would make an unrealistic impression, either. To get to the point, it should have been somebody with enough common sense and conversation skills to give the right answers to the right questions, a mediator between the media, the public and the zoo community. At least, that's what I'd have proposed, but to no avail – the damage is done, our reputation has been suffering. Fortunately, time heals wounds, so that by today, the ZETA movement is, judging by the frequency of their blog posts and the media coverage they get, virtually non-existent. Nevertheless, their major faults – take, for instance, how they fueled Thierfelder's anti-zoo campaign by "giving them a visible opponent", as you formulated it – should serve as a warning to those among our community who are too enthusiastic about "zoophile rights activism" to realize the imminent danger of taking action without a comprehensive strategy.
With regards to your concept of a "national register of zoophiles", I have to say that I am still sceptical about how such a system could be implemented without stigmatizing a sexual minority. Imagine, for example, what might be the result of a data leak if such a register existed. In my opinion, the Espenau case has given more than enough proof of what some of the more radical anti-zoo activists are capable of and judging by the recent outbreaks of violence against asylum seekers, vigilante justice is becoming a more and more common phenomenon. I personally recommend a central register of all pets and farm animals as an alternative to your concept, which would, of course, encompass the control mechanisms you proposed without segregating a definite group of people based upon their sexual preference.
Concerning the last paragraph, I'm still uncertain how I'd react if such a policy was put in place by the Austrian government. Indeed, your whole scenario brings up a plethora of questions which are incredibly hard to answer. For instance, where do you draw the line between platonic and sexual relationships? And how do you define what "only one animal" means? Does that imply that a registered zoophile might keep only one animal or does it mean that he/she is entitled to only one sexual relationship? Considering the "duties and obligations in a relationship" you mentioned, I'm not 100% sure what you mean. To me, the main advantage of a relationship between humans is that both partners are independent individuals, which means that that they are not dependent on each others care or financial support. What I experienced with my mare, in turn, is quite the opposite. When I decided to buy her, I was aware that I'd be in charge of caring for her for the next 30 years. This involves calling the vet if she has health issues or needs a vaccine, calling the farrier to trim her hooves, training her, making sure she gets enough hay and water – in short, taking responsibility for all aspects of her life. If I decided to find myself a young woman at the discotheque next Saturday, this wouldn't imply any responsibilities at all. As long as our relationship is pleasant to both of us, we stay together, a few months later, we might split up.
EDIT: By the way, you still owe me a reply to this comment on fencehopping: Link
I'd be glad if you could share your thoughts on this one with the community.
I really like your views on ZETA, they match mine pretty accurately.
Regarding your concerns about a "public zoo register", I know what you´re having in mind here. But don´t you think that it ´d be much easier for any perpetrator interested in illegally achieving data of zoophiles to go for IP addresses in zoo forums than hacking a government data base? Don´t you think that, with the NSA scandal, with "selector words" used to fish for certain people, we´re not already an open book?
Have you ever gained something significant without taking a risk, without putting efforts and hope into it? How can you expect significant change in public perception when you´re cowering down in your rabbit hole, shaking? But well, I´m just voicing an idea...if you have a better one that is more suitable for us without denying the authorities to monitor the wellbeing of the animals living in a "zoo relationship" , ´cause that really is the "casus knacktus" here, just bring it on.
Regarding the Espenau case, I have to correct you. It wasn´t an "anti zoo warrior" who beat up Mr Fencehop, it was the horse owner´s boyfriend/man, a known right wing extremist. I can even partially understand his impulse to beat up this guy: that guy was known as a fencehopper in that area for years. That guy has left bloody handprints in the stable , showing that he injured the mare he was "visiting", some folks even say that the fencehopper´s action led to the abortus of a foal. Even with that, well documented case , our Fencehop hero would have gotten away unpunished. Maybe a small fine, but no prison time, no therapy to stop this guy from scaring all horse owners in his area shitless. From an owner´s perspective, there really is nothing you can do about fencehoppers. Trespassing is not a big deal in German law. And here is where the new law against sex with animals closes an obvious gap. Is it really such a surprise that the owner´s friend, once he realised that Mr Fencehop will get away again, even with what he has done with the mare in Espenau, decided to end the constant terror any animal owner has to endure when a fencehopper roams the area?
Don´t get me wrong, I don´t support violence, but in some cases, our law only leaves violence as the last option to deal with a problem. The attack wasn´t "anti zoo"...even if the bruiser, an extreme right winger, probably hates zoophilia, I heavily doubt he´d blindly attack any "zoophile" like he did with the one "zoophile" that left him no other choice but to take some physical action for "personal reasons".
The "one animal only" would refer to the sexual side. If you live on your own farm, having only one horse without any company would be cruel and a violation of the animal welfare idea, so I´m not gonna rule out owning several animals. But sexual relations should be restricted to only one animal. Sure , not the most elegant solution, but as I said, these are just rough ideas and you can try to improve them or even introduce other ideas.
First, I'd like to point out that my paragraph on the danger of a data leak referred more to potential cases of abuse by the actual users of the register – namely veterinaries or officials – rather than to a hacker attack targeted at publicizing the personal data of zoophiles. To me, this threat is especially realistic due to the role that veterinaries played in promoting the ban on sex with animals in Germany. With regards to the Espenau case, I must have confused some of the major incidents related to zoophilia in Germany – mea culpa. Of course, I agree with you that Burdinski's articles on the issue were at least tendentious, if not manipulative. In fact, the Espenau case lacks any references to zoophilia – it was an act of revenge committed by an unknown person, a typical example of vigilante justice. The incident that I referred to in my comment took place in Ramstein-Miesenbach and is a textbook example of the sometimes tragic consequences of naivety and irresponsibility. In fact, I'm still unable to reconstruct what must have been going on in the minds of those fools who have dared to publicly announce a zoo meeting in a private location, exposing themselves and their animals to the hatred of the anti-zoo campaigners. The effects of this impressive display of carelessness were overwhelming: Five dogs and two horses were violently taken from their owners by those self-proclaimed animal rights activists and it took several days until the animals were eventually released. While the police investigations were officially ceased soon after the incident, a group of extremists around the infamous Carsten T. have popularized the myth of an animal brothel in said location.
Sure, the vets can become a weak point in my proposal. But there is something called "Schweigepflicht", the obligation of not sharing private info about your customers.
In regards to the Espenau case, you´re wrong. It wasn´t an unknown "angel of revenge", it was the horse owner´s boyfriend/man (don´t know if they´re married or not). For me, this case is very well comparable to the famous Marianne Bachmeier case. Bachmeier , whose daughter was raped and killed by a "pedophile" , took out a gun and shot the perpetrator right in the courtroom.
Burdinski is a very special example of a "zoophile" indeed. On his blog "zoophiles-infoblog", I also commented on Espenau and Burdinski´s questionable approach, but all my comments are gone. Many Burdinski didin´t even publish with the same excuse as ZETA..." Your posts are offensive and insulting", but I can assure you that they were not and just kept asking the right questions. Burdinski, the one guy that likes to see himself as a sturdy fighter against fascism, is using censorship as if it was natural to dismiss any challenging different views...
On the Ramstein incident: You really wanna know what these guys had in mind? Let´s be frank: nothing...except their own sexual urges and desires. Just let me clarify that the animals weren´t "violently" taken...if you really want to figure out who the bad guys are in this case, just take a look at the pictures provided from the animal welfare orga that took the horses of Martin P.... I´m sure you have seen the picture of the half naked guy only clad in Adidas boxer shorts manipulating the paint mare´s genitals. This has taken place (according to Martin P.) long before he moved to Reuschbach and only a few months after he bought the mare...just take a good look at Quinelia´s (name of the paint mare) fur, still shiny. And now take a look at the pictures provided by the animal welfare orga...what I see is a horse that has no shiny fur anymore, a sure sign of constant stress. The overall impression Quinelia made on this pictures is that of a neglected horse...the Shetty stallion also looks like garbage. There is no possible way that seizing the animals and relocating them has such a huge effect on the general appearance of a horse in such a short time and so it´s only logical to assume that Martin P. is responsible for that. The fur pattern of the mare indicates that it´s the same mare as in countless videos uploaded by "Caballogermany".
If you really want to know what Reuschbach was all about, just take a look at Thierfelder´s footage of browsing through beastforum.info. Even only a few minutes of footage unveil the true bestial nature of Martin P. and all his "zoo friends", it also gave enough evidence to assume that Martin P. still is publishing animal porn although he has been found guilty of that before. That´s why beastforum.info was taken down almost immediately after the police raid was over...too much evidence that could be used to see through all the lies.
Martin P. himself said that he actually has pimped out his animals to "friends". The so called myth of an animal brothel cannot be dismissed easily as a hallucination of Thierfelder, there is evidence to back up the allegations. And even if ZETA wholeheartedly announced that "it has been proven that Reuschbach wasn´t an animal brothel", this statement is another one that only attempts to fog vision as there is no offense "running an animal brothel" in German law and thus, no one ever can be found guilty of this charge.
When this case emerged and it was clear whom the antis and media were talking about, I took the time and watched many of Caballogermany´s vids in BF...not only the several strangers that are definitively NOT Martin P., but also Martin P.´s own words while sucking a dog´s dick ("Where´s the stallion? I need the stallion now!") is hinting at the inconvenient , but true fact the animals were nothing more than live sex toys for Martin P. and his "guests". The sheep rape tape, his selection of animals (dogs and horses of both sexes so the vast majority of "zoo friends" can be "satisfied")....all of that which forges the picture of a truly vile bestialist who literally leaves out nothing in his "zoo" career. Animal porn? Made and uploaded to BF, check! Rape of a sheep? Check! Pimping out your animals to others? Check! Pimping out even animals that are not your own? Check! Allowing a truck driver (the guy in Adidas boxer shorts) to fuck your mare to gain the right to fuck the truck driver´s animal in return? Check! Well, take it from me...or watch the vids yourself to get your own impressions.
BTW, I´ve heard that both horses have disappeared. It is said that some unknown folks have stolen them so both horses cannot be returned to Martin P. I don´t know whether this is correct, but with the disastrous shape Quinelia was in on the pics from the animal welfare orga, I´d say it was the absolutely correct thing to do. It´s not only the dull fur, it´s also the obvious lack of proper training (she hasn´t been trained for a long time , according to the lack of muscles in the right places). This mare has been used only for sex, she´s been bought mainly for sex and I still wonder if Martin P. or his man (P. lives in a registered partnership) has ANY knowledge about horse keeping than where the sex organs are and how you "use" them. Fuck toys.
Finally, the Reuschbach group hasn´t announced their meeting publicly...and I still ask myself where Thierfelder got the address of Martin P. These are only guesses, but I consider them to be the best possible guesses: I believe that the meeting was propagated via beastforum.info and since this was a forum that allowed to watch threads and discussions only if you were registered, I assume Thierfelder snuck in and had full access to relevant data, such as the address of our " animal sharing zoo hero". These details were what I asked Caballogermany, like "If you´re not an animal brothel, where do all those guys come from you feature in your videos, with your animals?" and "Where has Thierfelder gotten your address from?"...instead of giving answers, Martin P. just got bitchy like someone you caught wanking behind the kitchen door and called me "brainwashed by the antis"...the usual tactics of someone caught and his bullshit unveiled. "Ich mach´ gewaschene Gehirne wieder schmutzig...pädagogisch wertvoll wie Peter Lustig!" ;)
It's amazing how you come up with this overwhelming flood of informations on the German bestialist scene. Obviously, the way ZETA presented these incidents on their blog differs more from reality than I had expected when I did my research in 2013. Back then, I saw no viable reason to question their statements on the matter – their arguments seemed reasonable and cogent. Taking Karin Burger's blog as a reference, I was certain to gain an objective and accurate view on what was going on. Though, confronted with the inside information you provided in your comments roughly three years after the great turmoil of 2013, I finally realize how foolishly I have misjudged the situation. My main mistake must have been my reluctance to perform primary research by browsing through Beast Forum, which might be attributed to some kind of confirmation bias or aversion against challenging my positive image of ZETA and the zoo community as a whole. The second factor might as well be a psychological one: In some of my previous comments, I mentioned that I have discovered my attraction to animals later than most and I still consider myself as heterosexual. Accordingly, my feelings towards women match what I feel for my mare, which implies that I treat her with the same respect as a potential human partner. Thus, extrapolating my personal experience with and my attitude towards zoophilia to the whole zoo community seemed natural to me. I assumed that for the vast majority of zoophiles, the emotional aspects are a crucial component of their relationships with their animal partners. Indeed, it didn't occur to me that sex parties or cases of abuse like the ones you depicted were possible at the core of the German zoophile community. I failed to realize the hypocrisy in the ZETA member's actions, falling for Burdinski's alternative facts on the Ramstein-Miesenbach incident.
With regards to Carsten T., I'd like to clarify that this man is a convicted criminal and not a mere animal rights activist. The following list of court decisions, which mainly refers to cases of defamation, gives proof of his illegal activities both on the internet and in real life. Link His website animal-pi.de – a repository of false accusations and misleading information with more grammatical and spelling mistakes per 100 words than in the comments section of an average youtube video, might be considered the epitome of fake news. Even though his credibility has diminished over the years, there were times when Carsten T. succeeded in selling his lies to the mainstream media, stirring outrage. Fortunately, his crusade against the zoophile community, which was fueled mainly by ZETA's provocative conduct, has been losing traction since 2014 and is likely to be buried in oblivion soon.
The same goes for the ZETA movement, which seems to be on the verge of disintegrating, either. The last activity on their blog dates back to December 2016 and most of what has been written during the last months lacks relevance and quality. Thus, there's a high chance we might witness the death of the world's most influential and most controversial zoophile rights movement within the next two years. As far as I'm concerned, ZETA is going to be referred to as a singularity in history, as a failed attempt to advocate the cause of a sexual minority made by a group of idealists who never managed to live up to the standards they set for themselves.
Don´t think that I haven´t went through the same stages as you, I also bought ZETA´s perspective and read Karin Burger´s blog. And don´t get me wrong on Thierfelder, I´m not at all a fan of him. I know he´s been convicted several times, I also know his special form of coprolalia (talking shit) and his very unhinged temperament paired with a real simpleton´s mind. But: There is a certain writing style the Beat generation authors have invented. You can call it Guerrilla ontology or Trickster writing. It mainly is based on the technique to mix valid facts with a few lies and half truths to challenge the reader´s intellect and also imprinting into his mind that you can be fooled by anyone, even your favourite author.Especially by those you like listening to.
Wilson, also one of these Trickster authors, condensed it to the proverb "He who understands too quick understands nothing". I view Thierfelder as the direct opposite of that idea: he spreads a lot, a real lot of obvious lies, but being a notorius liar does not exclude the possibility of saying the truth once in a while. Thierfelder vastly exaggerates and condemns, but what I fail to understand is when he directly talked to me after I was dropping some posts regarding a BF user named Welshpony, a gay bestialist known for his "contributions" a.k.a. porn . Thierfelder did not insult me more than calling me a sodomite , he actually showed something you could file under sympathy...well, at least in a very twisted sense, I guess. But Mr Insult Machine Gun from Recklinghausen , the one known for his instant insult automaton he kickstarts whenever zoophilia is mentioned (and sometimes even when zoophilia is not mentioned but his views are challenged) didn´t call me any names. How do you explain that? I can give you the link to the page he spoke to me as Germanhorsey, my BF account, if you like.
Not everything is black and white and things aren´t always as they seem. Never forget that. Don´t become blind for one side and their bullshit; especially not for your own side. What the zoo community hasn´t realised yet: what I do, building bridges to society, is the only thing that can help improve our dim situation. The usual approach of the zoos: separate from society, fraternise with other elements from within the same beasty/zoo scene. I do the opposite. And if that includes agreeing with Thierfelder on certain aspects of his viewpoints , additionally making Thierfelder somehow sympathetic to a muthafukkin´ zoophile...well, others talk...a lot. I deliver.
So that's that's happening in Germany, (maybe other European countries as well), but it's a different story in the United States: when a bill becomes law in a U.S. state, people are prosecuted under them. At least once a month someone somewhere in the U.S. is prosecuted, the most recent one being that Florida arrest.
With regard to the idea of a government monitoring the activities of zoos, as MDCCCLXIIII said, that might further stigmatize zoos and subject them to unequal treatment relative to the rest of the population. However, since the monitoring idea you described has never occurred, it is difficult to say how it would play out.
My point is, you seem to point at the individual when it's convenient, and point at the group when it's convenient. Case in point:
I fully agree that people should do a better job showing restraint, but until stereotypes change, a moral code only matters to at most one other person, the person who might rat on you. And unless they are a close personal friend, aware of and aligned with your moral code and also pretty open-minded, it probably won't matter to them either.
Bisexual people went through the same "you see the world as an anything-goes sexual playground" or "can't make up your mind" or "you don't care about gay rights because you can go find a woman" stereotypes in the 90s too.
The problem is that zoos are in hiding in order to protect themselves from the new anti-zoo laws, discrimination, and prosecution. That hiding means that pro-zoo messages of any kind are not heard, and the anti-zoos are the ones who get heard.
TBF if the people weren't against ethical bestiality then the laws would be meaningless. Assuming somehow the legislature is beaten back, you'd be dealing with a lynch rope instead of handcuffs. We've got enough radicals among us that there are some things scarier than the law, unfortunately.
There was a Chinese man who was recently lynched for allegedly having sex with a dog in China (he survived the lynching), but other then that I'm not aware of any other lynchings against zoos. But social harassment and "public shaming" can take other forms as well.
Well, lynch rope was more of a metaphore for the whole package, but I recall that story as well.
That's because the change to German law wasn't really about "animal rights", it was about "morality" and an anti-zoo agenda. If it was about animal rights, they would've banned the slaughtering/killing of animals, which they have not done.
As for lobbying groups, like I said before, the ACLU would be an organization that could potentially help zoos (in the U.S.) but so far they've done nothing to help them. And no major organization of any kind is helping zoos (for example, by fighting the new laws in court).
I'm curious how you would see an act of support by ACLU playing out to their advantage?
They are a civil liberties organization, so it would make sense if they supported zoo. Theoretically the ACLU is about defending rights regardless of the popularity of the people they're defending.
A lot of theoretical things break down once money and power are involved, unfortunately. Of course I remain open to being proven wrong.
Sorry, but utter bullshit. The German law is in fact about animal rights, it is part of the animal welfare laws and being a zoo isn´t outlawed at all, it isn´t even addressed by the law. No moral judgement here, just valid and reasonable concern for the animal´s wellbeing that is absolutely justified by the image AP gives us in public.
Cause and effect, action leads to reaction. No "anti zoo agenda", no conspiracy. And it might be a valid guess to say organisations like the ACLU obviously don´t consider fucking animals a civil liberty/human right...
I still can´t get behind what upsets you so much...with the least amount of precautions taken, not a single zoo will ever have contact with the authorities. Stay away from animal porn , don´t publish it yourself, don´t talk about your deviant sexual orientation with people if it isn´t 100% necessary, don´t search for or offer animal sex in public forums and you´re good.Why is it so hard to accept the simple fact that these "anti zoo" laws are basically toothless tigers and being upset about them despite their irrelevance for responsible and alert zoos is just silly.
If you could point out some cases in which "plain and simple" zoophilia, without animal porn, fencehopping or cruelty involved, has led to punishment....but I doubt you´ll be able to name even one case of that sort. Will you please get the following once and for all? " The so called "anti zoo" laws are primarily aimed at the ones who cannot deal responsibly with zoophilia. But if you act responsible and protect your privacy, these laws will never be applied to you. "
Please take it from me, a guy in his fourties who lives in "illegality" in many ways. My love is illegal, what I like to smoke is illegal, my spare time activities are illegal ( some of my martial arts weapons, such as shuriken, shuko, kama, nunchaku and any long , sharp blades are illegal in Germany), some of my "agricultural" interests are illegal, too ( see point two of this list). If I was like you, I´d be literally shitting my pants for 24 hours constantly. "Ooohh, the evil and unjust laws!"...but in all the years living a "thug life", as a sexual , "recreational", and martial art illegal, I actually learned something: The laws only have power if you get caught. So....don´t get caught. Protect your privacy. At all costs.
Riding instructor by day, hemp ninja by night. I like it.
[removed]
Yeah...;) Except I´m not working as a riding instructor anymore, ninjutsu was what I was training for some years before I started my riding career , I´m probably a bit "rusted" now and hemp was and is an excellent aid in living a life on the edge of society. If smoked regularly, it keeps off dreams...helps me a lot these days.
I think the reason you're having difficulty identifying is that your personal tolerance to risk is lower given your feelings and particular situation. People who aren't you, living in situations other than yours, or with personalities other than yours, may be more sensitive to risk, particularly if that risk has consequences likely to be severe.
Conversely, I have a hard time understanding how someone living thousands of miles away might have any idea what is safe for others, what works for people around them, etc. If your other post is true and slip-ups sometimes happen, the outcome relies on third parties you've never met, in a culture that you're not used to. So I find your statement above somewhat idealistic.
If such laws did not exist, the worst one might face is charges of abuse, which would be easy to disprove if there was indeed no abuse. Since such laws exist, it is possible that if you are not perfectly private all the time, you - or even someone you know - could make your life very difficult.
Not asking you to identify or agree, just explaining the mindset.
No , the reason why I have "difficulties" understanding mindsets that can and will get you in trouble for sure. My usual reply also applies here: Can you name one , just one "zoophile" who got into legal trouble without helping authorities by recording and uploading evidence against him himself? As far as the legal systems are concerned, in all first world countries as in many second and third world countries, the "Innocent until proven guilty" basic principle is in effect. Given how hard it is to prove "zoophilia" when the "zoophile" is cautious and values his privacy, the enormous amount of willingness to imagine situations in which the law truly is unjust is just ridiculous and also quite telling how much or little you´re truly distanced from the beasties. I really don´t know what you´re trying to tell me here. AFAIK, the method of "shut the fuck up about your illegal activities" is a globally recognised and also well working concept everywhere around the world. Altering an old Latin proverb, I´d say "Nullus judex, nulla poene" (Where there´s no judge, there´s no punishment). Keeping one´s own privacy, taking all possible precautions so you´re lowering the risk of being walked in on and literally nobody ever will get knowledge about your "quadruped sexuality". I partially can understand the need, the urge to talk about zoophilia, but should we really make the same mistake , draw the same corrupt conclusions as most other subgroups like vegans, gays (the younger generation) or any other group that has lost the original idea. Talking about it becomes more important than actually living it. Not equality is what is aimed at, but privilege and dominance.
I admit that these laws certainly increase the risk for my mares and me too. But I like to see both sides of these laws before I decide...and I can absolutely live with the additional risk. For me, it is just a small sacrifice to make for the greater good of giving authorities a tool to legally prosecute those among us who would have slipped through the "net" without the law. Trespassing? In some parts of ´Murica, you can get shot for trespassing, but anywhere else, the punishment is ridiculously minimal. As a German in my fourties, I have mostly lived my "zoo life" in a nation without a law banning sex with animals and thus I think I have the advantage of having experienced both "environments" now, legal and illegal. And I prefer the latter. The law has an undisputable deterrence factor for "try outs", it makes it possible to persecute acts that weren´t covered by animal welfare laws (like fencehopping without obvious injuries).
"...the worst one might face is charges of abuse..." Well, given the fact that abuse of animals isn´t easy to prove at all because animals can´t speak, I find your comment regarding this a bit off. What you´re really proposing here is nothing else than a "wildcard" for any bestialist. Just go on and prove abuse of an animal when it doesn´t show wounds, bruises or traumata....and don´t you tell me "Then it´s no abuse!". You can abuse animals in multiple ways, physical injuries are only one "option", not the only one. If I take a mare, force her into the corner of a tight box so she isn´t able to turn around anymore, yell at her whenever she tries to get away from my "advances" ´til she is literally shaking and showing "resignation tolerance", I haven´t hurt her physically at all. But would you consider it okay if I got away with that? Is this justice? Is it zoo to do such things? Is it zoo to support conduct like that? No? Well, why are you doin´it then? `Cause exactly that is what made new laws aimed directly at "zoophiles" necessary, the old "arrangement" had huge loopholes, failing to protect animals and owners from "zoophiles".
If we just weren´t so obsessed with the "black and white" thinking...binary thoughts, on and off...there´s a third option.Regulation. It combines the best of both and similarly avoids the worst of both. Monthly unschedueled visits from a neutral vet ensuring the physical and psychological wellbeing of the animal, participation in research as "study object" would also create a maelstrom of new data for scientists to work with and draw new conclusions from. I know, my proposal isn´t very popular around here, but I honestly see no other way for a peaceful coexistence of zoos and non zoos. I truly doubt we will ever get rid of the laws again; for a very simple reason. It´s just so very unlikely we ever will gather enough support from normals to overturn the laws, the only thinkable and valid option would be trying to "dry ´em out" by rearranging our entire community into one that rejects every action that bears a risk of getting into legal trouble. If these laws aren´t applied for, let´s say , 10 or 20 years, people will start asking why these laws exist when nobody is getting punished. That really is the only way I can see the laws vanishing. But since turning our community (and I talk about everyone into animal sex, not just the zoophiles) into a responsibly acting one is so utopian, we´ll have to face reality. These laws are here to stay, no matter how "unjust" you think they are.
Anyone who was charged with such offenses before about 1980. But even so, happening in the past has nothing to do with it happening in the future. At best it can only be proven to be unlikely.
Nosy people, mistakes, personal enemies, imperfection, doxxing, etc. all CAN have consequences, but only in the case where there's a law against what you're doing. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work well when strong emotions are involved.
Exactly my point. YOU can live with the risk. Other people are not you. They may find the (nonzero, as you agree) level of risk very uncomfortable.
The same is true with animal abuse among any owner, is it not? Therefore should all animal ownership be illegal because we cannot ensure that bad people won't cause emotional or other nonphysical harm to animals? And that is justified because people comfortable with the risk can still defy the law and keep animals covertly as long as they're careful?
I think your idea is an interesting compromise in theory, though unless all animal owners were subject to a similar review that list would be rather incriminating, and the implication of needing the review somewhat prejudicial, therefore staffing and monitoring it would probably be tough. And why would this idea of determining non-physical abuse be more effective than what I said above?
Is there some rule that people aren't supposed to raise issues that concern them unless there is a clear, immediate solution?
No, there isn´t a rule like that. But if a community constantly complains about "issues" and tries to raise them into the public eye, it´d be way more smarter to do this without a nagging, accussatory tone...and it also would help to invest some thinking before starting to yell. We´re standing at this very point for two fucking decades now, not a single inch of ground has been gained from pursuing the "total tolerance attitude" so common among our community.
More than 20 years of "campaigning", of "teaching the public"....and where has it brought us? Laws banning "zoophilia" have been issued in a lot of nations and states during this era...and you still believe that it´s not your concept that´s malfuctioning, but reality.
I do not see 20 years of campaigning or teaching the public, I see 20 years of doing essentially nothing. As you say, the outcome speaks for itself. In the absence of a good organized voice, the voice has been by nature the loony people, the perverts, etc.
Since we can't even agree on what a "zoophile" is, I would say that is clear evidence the effort hasn't gone too far.
Part of the problem is that people (the good people) would be willing to voice their pro-zoo opinions, but they're in the closet because they're afraid of what might happen to them if they speak up. (So because of this only the anti-zoos are heard). And you're correct that essentially nothing has taken place on the pro-zoo side all these years. For example there is no pro-zoo organization that I'm aware of in Canada or the U.S.
If I offered you 10% off would you start speaking out against the laws?
Let's hope so. I kind of want to see if I can get away with public "bestiality" in Vermont.
I've been to VT, and trust me; They wouldn't give half a damn about someone kissing their dog. I witnessed a woman laying beneath and kissing her Australian shepherd at a horse show for roughly 30 minutes. No one even gave it a second look.
That may change with this new bill. There will probably be lots of news articles several months from now saying "[sex with animals] finally banned in Vermont". And then there will be a news story about some person being caught and arrested under the new unjust law. People continue to view ALL sex with animals as a "crime", and they shouldn't.
Well, of course not. Obviously they wanted to ban contacts of the mouth of either partner with the genitals of the other partner, but they worded it such that mouth to mouth seems to be banned too.
So people should just go to the police and report themselves for kissing their dog if this becomes law.
Or am I misunderstanding something? The only way I can read it, it really would ban kissing...
Why would people downvote this post? From the looks of things there are so few real events posted on this subreddit anymore, this is relatively the most important thing on the first page.
If I had to say, it's probably because lots of people get stressed out over these things and want to come here to chill rather than fret over this stuff. Voting on quality rather than preference kinda goes on the wayside on Reddit, and we don't have a way to prevent it unfortunately.
I could make a big rant 30-30 style about community's priorities (recurring theme) but it's not like I have to, it speaks for itself. Good thing the system doesn't hide downvoted posts like it does comments, can you imagine. You can tell those people don't live in Vermont, funny how that works.
It's funny, I never know if I should upvote or downvote such posts.
Upvote to raise awareness, or downvote because I don't like it?
In the end, I never vote for such posts anyways.
Too many bad 314
Banning sex with animals is convenient for those people who would sign their name with a circle because their real name isn't convenient enough.
No different than the neuter-nazis. Genitals and the hormones that come with them are not convenient enough for control over the animal
Yeah, this is actually really bad.
They're taking bestiality really seriously by doing this.
It may get worse than this, they may take more action... Anything other than laws.
The anti-zoo bill in Texas is even worse than the one in Vermont, because the Texas bill would make it a felony in that state, AND force a caught zoo to go onto the Texas sex offender registry. So of the 3 bills right now, the Texas one seems to be the worst.
It's such a shame that we can't do anything about it.
All I can do is just stare at it and feel bad.
And it's not even affecting me.
Y'know, we zoos are quite some sad people...
When one sees multiple attempts to ban sex with animals in multiple jurisdictions at the same time, it gives one a sense of helplessness; because what is a zoo supposed to do to stop it? If they voice their opinion, they risk having their lives ruined by someone.
Of course we can do something... Offer the Texans 10% off They might grab up the discount faster than their belief benefits of discrimination. They obviously don't care about anything and nothing affects them unless it costs too much or there is a discount involved.
If the laws are claimed to not affect a zoophile, then they are not real zoos, they are imposters who are abusing the label in the name of the law.
They are simply applying demoralization tactics, in the name of sexual discrimination and furthermore dehumanization.
[removed]
[removed]