How can I, as a non-zoo, help zoophiles?(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-03-14 04:55:59 by [deleted]
[deleted]
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 11 points on 2017-03-14 05:03:05
I think the best you can do right now is if the subject comes up in a conversation, challenge the status quo. Argue on our behalf and show that not everyone is opposed. Be prepared for significant pushback to such opinions, however.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 5 points on 2017-03-14 05:57:06
I think it's important to recognize too though that things can 'go wrong', as it were. Rattling off how zoos are all fine and dandy is a little uncanny. Even a short "there are a few exceptions, but..." helps make your argument appear as reasoned as it is.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-03-14 18:41:28
Well, see, when I see the word "zoophile" I automatically think of an idealistic setting in which love is the norm, and little can go wrong.
Not all who use that term feel the same though, admittedly. But my bias was showing, yes.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-03-14 06:17:09
I'd say that a show of solidarity helps a great deal. Stick around and discuss with us, if that's your cup of tea. We aren't to the point where activism will get zoos anywhere, but a community populated with people from within and 'without' is a great start for changing opinions on Reddit.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 0 points on 2017-03-14 07:14:56
You can't.
I don't even know what we need help with anymore.
If it's laws, public image, etc. then don't waste your time.
You'll only suffer from it.
Humans will accuse you of being a zoophile yourself and they will absolutely hate you.
The closest thing you can do is participate in the community.
But then again, I don't see why anyone would help us.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-14 07:27:52
Well, of course all is naught with an attitude like that.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-14 07:50:09
Obviously it is.
But I don't have that attitude for nothing.
Where exactly does our hope come from anyways?
It's like waiting for a god to show himself out of nowhere. We have no chance for anything.
What is there to help anyways?
And in the end, whatever helps us also helps fencehoppers, abusive bestialists, etc.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-14 09:15:00
Where exactly does our hope come from anyways?
OP, myself, pretty much all other non-zoo, pro-zoo people; zoophiles, and yourself most importantly. We're all proof that if nothing else, you're not alone. Pessimism lends itself to nothing but harm, though. People come in, see hopelessness like this, then walk away thinking thinking "Welp, clearly it's not worth advocating for them if even they think it won't do anything". I say this (hopefully) as a friend and as a man of science... cautious positivity leads to better outcomes.
What is there to help anyways?
Yourself. Your partner. Everyone that wants to see zoophiles succeed. People with intact nonhuman animals that want to help relieve their companions sexual tension when they need it. The scientific community. This is an issue pertinent to nonhuman animal rights, human rights, ethics, the sciences, and more.
Acknowledging the sexual agency and competence of nonhuman animals is something that will help in more ways than you can count, and it'll help lift a proverbial iron curtain, again, in the sciences. R&D can begin in earnest on bestiality. It could mean the beginning of an era with a larger focus on nonhuman animals as their own agents... and we've already got a foundation for that.
Research in nonhuman animal cognition has highlighted much greater intellectual and cognitive homogeny with humans as of late. We've got cultured meat on the horizon, which will be a huge boon for animal rights and conservation, bringing nonhuman animals out of "necessary evil" territory. We're reaching a critical turning point in our society, and it's not an anthropocentric one. If we do nothing though, then we've got a bunch of animal rights groups that will make sure bestiality is stamped out for good, the pet trade is brutally regulated, and they'll be able to grow their influence even more, with enough money left over to buy gilded capes and pose as the heroes. Lots of the animal rights groups out there are organizations that I kind of want put in their place, and not just because they make my research more expensive. We only need to be smart about this. We don't need ad campaigns if we have the internet on our side, and we don't need lobbying money if we have voters on our side.
But it requires us to be forward looking and at least open to the possibility of progress. The wiki is part of that forward facing attitude, and welcoming non-zoos is another part.
And in the end, whatever helps us also helps fencehoppers, abusive bestialists, etc.
If no advancements are made on the behalf of nonhuman animals, sure. That said, though, those offenses are illegal anyway, and abusive zoosex is the most visible in most cases(and abuse laws would pick up the slack in those cases accordingly). Pushing for the legality of zoosex, however, doesn't mean pushing for legalizing it in every sense of the word, mind you. I actually talked about a number of stipulations that you'd probably see in a 'legal zoosex' bill here.
If we always chose to stop pushing for something when a small minority would be slightly enabled to do bad, then we'd never get anywhere. Nothing is perfect, that's how it is, but imperfection isn't a justification not to do it. Life insurance is a great motive for a greedy spouse to turn a knife on their significant other, but does that mean we shouldn't allow life insurance? Of course not, because the benefits overall are much greater than the risk of Rob killing Nancy for insurance money. Money lends itself to corruption, but should we have avoided currency? No, because it's much, much easier to perform transactions with currency than trade goods. You get the idea.
It sucks that it happens, but we can't be so strictly puritanical that we opt to forget the good of every action in favor of the sin it can enable.
30-30amator equae 3 points on 2017-03-14 10:05:07
"We´re reaching a critical turning point"...gosh, sometimes I envy you for your optimism...I can´t see such a turning point, business goes on as usual. That´s the crux with humans...they only change their ways when they´re forced to by circumstances. As long as McD sells burgers, the blood won´t stop flowing from the slaughterhouse. As long as capitalism lives, it thrives on death and exploitation of Gaia. Or, as Karin Burger, a German blogger dedicated to criticising the animal welfare and anti zoo orgas (although she doesn´t accept zoophilia herself) has put it: "What all those activists don´t realise is that real animal welfare would overthrow capitalism and the entire world would be a totally different one...and not many are open for new things."
Yeah, you can be vegetarian or vegan and tell yourself what a morally superior person you are, but it´s a fact that the percentage of veggies has risen in Germany up to nearly 8 %....but the slaughterhouses continue their "work". The meat German veggies don´t eat will be exported, often to Africa, where the cheap imports destroy local infrastructure...hooray capitalism.
"Life insurance...(...)...of Rob killing Nancy for insurance money"
Sorry to say, but that´s really stretching the basic idea beyond the limits. When ob kills Nancy with a knife, he´ll surely be in jail. Forensics et al. , you know...Not many get away with murder these days...but lots of animal abusers still get away ´cause DNA tests and other sophisticated scientific ways to rethrieve evidence are seldom applied to animals.
You´re missing out on one little detail here...the idea behind zoophilia. This idea gets undermined every time one of the "small group of evildoers" (that isn´t as small as you might think) gets away with shit.
Would you hand over your kids to Catholic priests? No? Why is that so? Most priests don´t abuse/rape children...so, why are these pictures in your head? (And I know they are...)
See how it works?
Why is the new pope so beloved? Because he´s probably the first one who acts and talks ACCORDINGLY to what he represents....just think about it.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 3 points on 2017-03-14 13:02:19
sometimes I envy you for your optimism...I can´t see such a turning point, business goes on as usual.
Mind that you and I are in two very different worlds, and two very different fields. I'm a man of science, my colleagues people of science. I have a different perspective on things, accordingly, but I'd like to say it is also evidenced.
As long as McD sells burgers, the blood won´t stop flowing from the slaughterhouse. As long as capitalism lives, it thrives on death and exploitation of Gaia.
I already mentioned meat cultures. They're cheaper and faster to produce, and you have more control over the meat. There won't be a reason to farm nonhuman animals for meat once it's perfected because it's cheaper, more efficient, healthier, more consistent, easier to process, longer lasting, and much easier to automate(literally just better). You're hemorrhaging money in the future as a meat using chain if you don't try setting up a bioreactor and making your own meat, or at least buying from a producer that does. McDonalds is perfect for vetting this stuff since consistency is their main shtick, and this makes consistency a cinch.
Capitalism will temper itself in time, as automation and the masses compel it to.
Sorry to say, but that´s really stretching the basic idea beyond the limits. When ob kills Nancy with a knife, he´ll surely be in jail.
That's exactly it, though, it is stretching it. Rob might still try. It's not the risk of him getting away with it that I cited... it's the risk of him doing it. It's an ever-so-minute risk, but it's there. There's just no reason to stop life insurance because of it, though.
Oh, and forensics quality depends on the case, crime density and locality. The best forensic analysis is the best for a reason, but you rarely get the best.
Not many get away with murder these days...but lots of animal abusers still get away ´cause DNA tests and other sophisticated scientific ways to rethrieve evidence are seldom applied to animals
This isn't an issue with the law, it's an issue with enforcement. It's still not that common of an offense. There's a reason why murder has such a sophisticated system behind its enforcement and bestiality doesn't. There's also the issue of safety information. Right now... Well, there's nothing official, and nothing that's really in the open about all this, so we have people going off of vague information they got from strangers on the internet, or nothing at all. If it begins being legalized again, we can do research on this topic, get a scientific take on "sex safety with X" and 'when it's time' which means less accidental trauma, and... those people that would have said "Fuck the law!" might consider reading up and treading more lightly in consideration of the fact that what they're doing is legal and there's much less incentive to break the law in that case, prying eyes or no. I said this in response to warcanine as well, but You'll be getting increased R&D into preventing sexual abuse due to pushback against it being made legal. That's kind of a win-win, though, I guess.
Would you hand over your kids to Catholic priests?No? Why is that so? Most priests don´t abuse/rape children...so, why are these pictures in your head? (And I know they are...) See how it works? Why is the new pope so beloved? Because he´s probably the first one who acts and talks ACCORDINGLY to what he represents....just think about it.
The thing is though, I have numbers on pedophilia, as with many things, and am pretty neutral about them. Most pedophiles don't follow through, the vast majority, in fact. And even more keep silent, and also don't follow through... Because they don't want to hurt children. It just so happens that like zoophiles they genuinely care about children... pardon the comparison. So, I'd be fine about even a confirmed pedophilic priest dealing with my hypothetical kids as long as they don't start preaching to them... because even then the risk is practically nil. It's also why I'd be fine with most of the people here petsitting for me. There are perverts, but the risk is still exceptionally low, and I can trust their attention to detail for the most part. It may even be that a pedophile would be more devoted to the wellbeing of my hypothetical children because of their sexual disposition, accordingly. This kind of stigma reminds me of shark attacks. Each story is publicized in vivid detail, but they are so because there isn't enough volume to justify vagueries. And thus, people are more afraid of sharks than they are about car crashes, despite the absence of risk.
Is this a prevailing approach? Probably not. I suppose I might think differently from most, I contemplate and study things before allowing myself to form an opinion, and I often take words I have yet to verify with a grain of salt. I don't know about that part of me in particular terribly well, but I know what you mean. I'm simply too analytical for that example to apply to me, though. Anyway, I'd say that most people don't really think of catholic priests as pedophiles, anyway. It's a controversy that became a meme, then was slowly forgotten, far as I've seen.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-14 11:11:25
OP, myself, and pretty much all other non-zoo, pro-zoo people. We're all proof that if nothing else, you're not alone. Pessimism lends itself to nothing but harm, though.
Yeah, and if I look at the amount of antis vs. supporters/zoos...
I don't think I have to explain that. We zoos are more lonely than you think.
People come in, see hopelessness like this, then walk away thinking thinking "Welp, clearly it's not worth advocating for them if even they think it won't do anything".
That was the point of my comment.
I really don't care what humans do in their free time, but supporting zoophilia just seems sad.
Trying to support zoophilia is like trying to revive the dead.
Everyone will laugh at you, and it just won't work. It's a sad attempt.
People with intact nonhuman animals that want to help relieve their companions sexual tension when they need it.
There's people that think that...?
Yeah, you really can't tell me you jerk off your dog and don't do it just because you want to help them. Mmmnnm, sure.
But then again, that's not even a good reason.
It could mean the beginning of an era with a larger focus on nonhuman animals as their own agents... and we've already got a foundation for that.
And that 'era' starts with zoophilia or bestiality?
That's ridiculous. Everyone avoids this subject, and why would they even start here?
If we do nothing though, then we've got a bunch of animal rights groups that will make sure bestiality is stamped out for good
Yeah so? There's nothing else to do.
We can't do anything.
and abusive zoosex is the most visible in most cases
And how do you know that?
I don't believe so. You can have abusive sex without anyone knowing.
Animals can't really say of someone abused them or not.
It's a very good reason to not support bestiality.
If we always chose to stop pushing for something when a small minority would be slightly enabled to do bad, then we'd never get anywhere.
Oh of course.
You supporters do your thing.
I'd rather not watch, though. It's sad to see nothing change even though people are trying so hard.
But you know what? It really doesn't matter anymore.
I can't change anyone's mind. I've never convinced someone different.
I just won't look at the sad attempts anymore.
Nothing will change as long as I live anyways.
I don't care what happens to zoophilia after my death.
Because I wanted to support zoophilia for only my own good.
I can't profit from that after I die.
But finally I realized that nothing would change anyways.
What if we're suddenly accepted? What if bestiality is suddenly legal?
It won't change a damn thing. Maybe it'll increase the chances of animals getting hurt. Ahem, fencehoppers, zoosadists, etc. That's all.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-03-14 12:10:21
Yeah, and if I look at the amount of antis vs. supporters/zoos...
I don't think I have to explain that. We zoos are more lonely than you think.
Then don't make it worse for yourself.
EDIT: We also don't have numbers. There's an old saying though, that I just remembered. "The outraged are the most outspoken". A negative response is always louder than a positive one, even if the positive one has more people.
That was the point of my comment.
I really don't care what humans do in their free time, but supporting zoophilia just seems sad.
Trying to support zoophilia is like trying to revive the dead.
Everyone will laugh at you, and it just won't work. It's a sad attempt.
Funny thing, nobody's laughed at me yet. I've been met with puzzled people, astonishment, admiration, even, but not laughter for it(EDIT: Except from you, maybe.). I've discussed this with over a dozen people IRL, and have a perfect track record of changing their views. This is something that happens cumulatively. Your efforts aren't going to seem effectual at first, but that's how most things are. A towering redwood starts with a tiny seed.
And that 'era' starts with zoophilia or bestiality?
That's ridiculous. Everyone avoids this subject, and why would they even start here?
Nope, it's sexual agency that'll do it. That 'era' starts with a number of other criteria that i outlined, and some that I didn't. Changing public opinion here will help trigger a number of additional inquiries.
There's people that think that...?
Yeah, you really can't tell me you jerk off your dog and don't do it just because you want to help them. Mmmnnm, sure.
But then again, that's not even a good reason.
I'd do it if it came to it. It's not an issue of liking it, it's an issue of health, both physically and mentally... and preventing unwanted reproduction. It's a meager price to pay for the enhanced health of a pet.
Yeah so? There's nothing else to do.
We can't do anything.
If you don't try growing support, then no, no you can't. I've had no less than a dozen of my own friends go from anti zoo or zoo neutral to pro zoo fairly quickly after discussing it with them(Probably helps that I'm not a zoophile myself). That's just me, one person, talking about it. And who knows who they'll change the minds of when it comes up in conversation? Ideas propagate themselves through people, and they do so exponentially. The great thing about my friends is, the majority of them are biologists and scientists by trade. They're especially valuable to the cause, even in light of the reasonable trepidation that has been brought up on the matter.
And how do you know that?
It's the most visible because physical coercion and psychological abuse both have visible signs that veterinarians can hone in on. There are classes that veterinarians can take for this very thing.
What if we're suddenly accepted? What if bestiality is suddenly legal?
It won't change a damn thing. Maybe it'll increase the chances of animals getting hurt. Ahem, fencehoppers, zoosadists, etc. That's all.
I forgot to mention one thing... Heroine and cocaine are illegal and information about it is suppressed accordingly... and there is no recourse to find verifiable safety information. If it's made legal, that means we can research it, we can get that information out there, and we can prevent unintentional harm. Making it legal means the people that would have said "fuck the law!" might decide that since it's legal they may as well adhere to the stipulations it brings with it. Also, with it being legal, there may be more R&D put into preventing abuse.
No offense, but your reply comes off more as edgy/angsty teenager than anything else.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-14 14:13:38
Then don't make it worse for yourself.
What do you mean?
EDIT: We also don't have numbers. There's an old saying though, that I just remembered. "The outraged are the most outspoken". A negative response is always louder than a positive one, even if the positive one has more people.
I really don't think it works that way.
There's a reason why these laws exist and the lack of supporters.
I don't think we can deny the fact that the majority of people are against zoophilia and bestiality.
Funny thing, nobody's laughed at me yet. I've been met with puzzled people, astonishment, admiration, even, but not laughter for it(EDIT: Except from you, maybe.).
Well, a lot of people did laugh at me.
I got all the opposite from what you got. Nothing but disrespect and name calling.
And these are your friends, and not to mention you're not a zoo.
I can't say these things to my friends. I'd lose them instantly.
I 'baited' them to talk about it.
Let's just say that if they'd find out that no one would ever see me again.
And the reason I laugh at anyone trying is because it's no use.
I really don't want to explain it again.
This is something that happens cumulatively. Your efforts aren't going to seem effectual at first, but that's how most things are.
You're completely right on that!
I first thought I might change some people views, then lost hope...
Luckily, I DID change their views! By bringing up that I was a zoophile they realized they actually hated it and also hated me!
The effect was quite impressive!
That profile raiding, that whole ''trying to get the dogfucker's IP'' thing, all that sort of stuff. I'm surprised I'm not as popular as Aluzky now! Hey, ever heard of ''The Delusional Degenerate Dogfucker Quixenare'' yet?
No? Well I should've done better 5-6 months ago!
Nope, it's sexual agency that'll do it. That 'era' starts with a number of other criteria that i outlined, and some that I didn't. Changing public opinion here will help trigger a number of additional inquiries.
Yeah and how exactly are we going to do this again?
Humans avoid bestiality. Nobody wants to talk about it.
And if it's illegal, it's no one's problem. Except for zoos of course, but nobod-... the majority of humanity does not care about us.
I'd do it if it came to it. It's not an issue of liking it, it's an issue of health, both physically and mentally... and preventing unwanted reproduction. It's a meager price to pay for the enhanced health of a pet.
Except sex is not necessary to one's health.
There's enough animals who aren't spayed or neutered and don't have sex that live the exact same life.
If you don't agree I'd really like to know about why you think that.
I'm really interested, too. I'll cut the whole sex part and see if it brings any change to mine.
I've had no less than a dozen of my own friends go from anti zoo or zoo neutral to pro zoo fairly quickly after discussing it with themThat's just me, one person, talking about it. And who knows who they'll change the minds of when it comes up in conversation? Ideas propagate themselves through people, and they do so exponentially.
Yeah YOU did, but I still have to hear other's stories.
I've changed no one's mind. What have I done wrong?
How did YOU do it?
Do I have to link you to arguments so you can see where I've fucked up so badly?
I've only made people more hateful towards zoophilia, just by waking them up about zoophilia existing.
I've tried being nice, I've tried being smart, I've tried being a dick just like them. What is it that I'm missing?
Am I missing an important part of zoo arguments?
(Probably helps that I'm not a zoophile myself).
That's true. I only keep hearing how I'm a disgusting person, completely ignoring the actual topic.
And sometimes they don't even know I'm a zoophile and they just leave because the topic is disgusting. But when they know I'm a zoophile, it gets way worse.
The great thing about my friends is, the majority of them are biologists and scientists by trade.
Yeah, but have any of them been against zoophilia at all?
Is this is an exact group of 12 people that you have convinced?
And you said that the majority of them are biologists and scientists.
But the thing is, I want the public to accept us, not just a specific group of people.
It's the most visible because physical coercion and psychological abuse both have visible signs that veterinarians can hone in on. There are classes that veterinarians can take for this very thing.
That makes sense, but 'invisible' abusive zoosex is easily possible.
Don't physically harm the animal, that's all you have to do.
But still, how would you know that abusive zoosex is going on?
No no, I'm not talking about the evidence. I'm talking about the reason they're inspecting your animal in the first place.
Why would they? If bestiality is illegal, you'll end up in big problems anyways. If bestiality is legal, then there is no reason to inspect that animal, so abusive zoosex can be done without anyone knowing.
As for psychological abuse, I really doubt you can know that.
It probably would be very inaccurate, every animal acts different, including their sexual behavior.
I forgot to mention one thing... Heroine and cocaine are illegal and information about it is suppressed accordingly... and there is no recourse to find verifiable safety information. If it's made legal, that means we can research it, we can get that information out there, and we can prevent unintentional harm. Making it legal means the people that would have said "fuck the law!" might decide that since it's legal they may as well adhere to the stipulations it brings with it. Also, with it being legal, there may be more R&D put into preventing abuse.
This is one of my biggest concerns about turning bestiality legal.
We can never just know that that one zoophile a few doors away is not abusive or not. Another reason why I don't trust my own 'kind.'
Oh, and making bestiality legal just to research it is dumb.
Changing the laws probably won't do much for non-abusive zoophiles, though.
But in if it has an effect for us non-abusive zoophiles, it will also have a positive effect for zoosadists, fenceh- you know what I mean.
So that means in the mean time when they're researching, animals are getting raped by those crooks.
That's not worth it at all.
Not to mention, who wants to research this subject?
Why hasn't it been researched before? No no, the laws don't stop people from researching, it's the fact that everybody runs away from this subject.
No offense, but your reply comes off more as edgy/angsty teenager than anything else.
I thought this counted for all my angry comments here.
Well, I have no idea how to change it. I'm just saying what I think.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-14 15:41:09
What do you mean?
There's no point in stifling an opportunity for a better outcome.
There's a reason why these laws exist and the lack of supporters.
I don't think we can deny the fact that the majority of people are against zoophilia and bestiality.
I'm not putting my name out in support of bestiality either. Lots of your support is anon.
And these are your friends, and not to mention you're not a zoo.
Yeah, and it lends me credibility. I don't appear to benefit from it.
You're completely right on that!
I first thought I might change some people views, then lost hope...
Luckily, I DID change their views! By bringing up that I was a zoophile they realized they actually hated it and also hated me!
The effect was quite impressive!
That profile raiding, that whole ''trying to get the dogfucker's IP'' thing, all that sort of stuff. I'm surprised I'm not as popular as Aluzky now! Hey, ever heard of ''The Delusional Degenerate Dogfucker Quixenare'' yet?
No? Well I should've done better 5-6 months ago!
More angsty teenager. It's not poor execution, it's the other people. Of course.
Yeah and how exactly are we going to do this again?
Humans avoid bestiality. Nobody wants to talk about it.
And if it's illegal, it's no one's problem. Except for zoos of course, but nobod-... the majority of humanity does not care about us.
Create rapport, then create interest. We're working on the former right now. There are more receptive demographics, and more receptive generations, I've found, but we can't effectively target them online, nor do we necessarily need to.
Except sex is not necessary to one's health.
There's enough animals who aren't spayed or neutered and don't have sex that live the exact same life.
If you don't agree I'd really like to know about why you think that.
I'm really interested, too. I'll cut the whole sex part and see if it brings any change to mine.
Well for one, it can decrease risk of prostate cancer in males. Using human models, I'd suspect bouts of sexual frustration in the complete absence of it that would be observed as aggression. Worse in males, of course. I'd expect the rush of endorphins to be the same, so there's systemic benefits there. It's fair to say that the human benefits of sex extend to most mammals. The effects would be mostly psychological and of varying degree, so they could be difficult to discern.
I've changed no one's mind. What have I done wrong?
How did YOU do it?
I'd have to see it to know.
Do I have to link you to arguments so you can see where I've fucked up so badly?
Unless I become omniscient while I sleep, yes. ^^fingers ^^crossed
I've tried being nice, I've tried being smart, I've tried being a dick just like them. What is it that I'm missing?
Am I missing an important part of zoo arguments?
Being patient helps. I also have a habit of highlighting when something needs more research before we know for certain. You want to have a reasoned approach. Not "smart pro zoo", keep it neutral and academic. Worst case, you make an ass out of a bunch of people on the internet. You do need to be informed, or at least have sources handy.
Yeah, but have any of them been against zoophilia at all?
Is this is an exact group of 12 people that you have convinced?
And you said that the majority of them are biologists and scientists.
But the thing is, I want the public to accept us, not just a specific group of people.
In order, a few yes, more than 12 less than 15, they are, and they're credible and can shift public perception with topical studies. Well, not them in particular, but everyone knows eachother at some point, doubly so here.
But still, how would you know that abusive zoosex is going on?
Behavior changes. You can lube up all you want but if you make habit of subjugating your pet, it shows.
Why would they? If bestiality is illegal, you'll end up in big problems anyways. If bestiality is legal, then there is no reason to inspect that animal, so abusive zoosex can be done without anyone knowing.
If its legal they can still check to ensure there is no abuse taking place. Itd be handled on a state by state basis and im sure some would be more intensive about it.
It probably would be very inaccurate, every animal acts different, including their sexual behavior.
Not just behavior, you can run bloodwork on them, check for increased levels of stress hormones beyond the norm. It's reliable enough without bloodwork though since most animals act within certain margins normally.
We can never just know that that one zoophile a few doors away is not abusive or not.
Microchips that log stress hormones, record the mean, observe frequency of spikes, intensity of spikes, you've got probable cause.
Oh, and making bestiality legal just to research it is dumb.
So we can prevent another person from getting their large intestine ripped open by a horse penis.
Changing the laws probably won't do much for non-abusive zoophiles, though.
Change the people to change the laws. By the time its legal status changes the social climate will have changed with it. Oh and less convictions for ethical zoos of course.
But in if it has an effect for us non-abusive zoophiles, it will also have a positive effect for zoosadists, fenceh- you know what I mean.
If the abuse is visible, no help. If they get caught trespassing, no help. The only thing that changes is that there would be a legal avenue that they can go down.
So that means in the mean time when they're researching, animals are getting raped by those crooks.
This is why you have stipulations in laws. Very few get caught anyway, and their research would be more valuable than a few dozen abusers getting off the hook in the coming decades(along with the aforementioned ethical zoos).Their research may help thousands of nonhuman animals, millions perhaps.
Not to mention, who wants to research this subject?
Why hasn't it been researched before? No no, the laws don't stop people from researching, it's the fact that everybody runs away from this subject.
Jacking off a german shepard while wearing nitrile gloves and taking notes is still legally bestiality. So, the law does get in the way. There are people interested in the topic, but the 'hands on' approach they'd need isnt considered ethical nor is it legal. It's risky for us researchers too.
Well, I have no idea how to change it. I'm just saying what I think.
Start with your worldview.
This thread is a good thing. We, or some greater representation of zoophiles inspired a non zoo enough to ask how they can help out. That's powerful. It means we did something right, very right.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-14 18:37:58
There's no point in stifling an opportunity for a better outcome.
Unless you're actually wasting your time.
I'm not putting my name out in support of bestiality either. Lots of your support is anon.
Okay?
Yeah, and it lends me credibility. I don't appear to benefit from it.
Well zoos suffer from it that's for sure.
Not always, but it definitely happens.
More angsty teenager. It's not poor execution, it's the other people. Of course.
But how can you be so sure on that?
I may be missing something here because for some reason you and 30-30 can someone meet people who magically don't hate zoophilia.
And if it's always the other people, then what do we do about them?
Well for one, it can decrease risk of prostate cancer in males. Using human models, I'd suspect bouts of sexual frustration in the complete absence of it that would be observed as aggression. Worse in males, of course. I'd expect the rush of endorphins to be the same, so there's systemic benefits there. It's fair to say that the human benefits of sex extend to most mammals. The effects would be mostly psychological and of varying degree, so they could be difficult to discern.
There's other things which do the same, like spaying and neutering.
Except it gets rid of that altogether.
And we can't just say ''well if it's for humans like that it's the same for mammals.''
I notice no difference when I do or don't help her out with, err, that.
I'd have to see it to know.
I'll send you a pm. Edit: nvm this.
Behavior changes. You can lube up all you want but if you make habit of subjugating your pet, it shows.
I'd really like to know what kind of behavior they'd show.
Abuse can be done in different ways. I wouldn't call training abuse on it's own, but training can be abuse.
If its legal they can still check to ensure there is no abuse taking place. Itd be handled on a state by state basis and im sure some would be more intensive about it.
And how would they exactly know who has sex with their animal or not?
I'm not sure what you meant, but if people are going to check out our animals, no thanks.
Not just behavior, you can run bloodwork on them, check for increased levels of stress hormones beyond the norm. It's reliable enough without bloodwork though since most animals act within certain margins normally.
Same thing again, how'd you know who shags their animal or not?
Microchips that log stress hormones, record the mean, observe frequency of spikes, intensity of spikes, you've got probable cause.
So what's the plan here?
How are you going to let this work?
So we can prevent another person from getting their large intestine ripped open by a horse penis.
I'm not sure what you mean with that.
Anyone involved in that is extremely dumb.
Change the people to change the laws. By the time its legal status changes the social climate will have changed with it. Oh and less convictions for ethical zoos of course.
I really want to believe that.
But I have a feeling people will abuse the fact that bestiality has been illegal, that's how humans are.
Something being legal does not make it right.
As for the non-abusive zoos getting caught... How many of them have been caught?
I'm really against the idea of innocent creatures being punished, but people rarely get caught itfp.
If the abuse is visible, no help. If they get caught trespassing, no help
Yeah and if it isn't?
I'm strongly against these things. I don't want bestiality to be legal until these two misdeeds have a fix.
Do you realize that if we don't fix these things, bestiality being legal only hurts animals?
This is why you have stipulations in laws. Very few get caught anyway, and their research would be more valuable than a few dozen abusers getting off the hook in the coming decades(along with the aforementioned ethical zoos).Their research may help thousands of nonhuman animals, millions perhaps.
Yeah, and I want 'stipulations' against these misdeeds.
Except we don't have them. And the thing is, we don't specifically need to research animals for them. Unless there's very specific behavior they show only when raped / fencehopped, where it's very obvious that it has happened.
We need plans so these things cannot be done. Let's just hope these plans don't interfere with my and my girl's privacy.
And I really don't know how that can help thousands of animals.
I looked up to you, but I really can't look at you the same way when you think bestiality is something that's good for animals.
Because this world would actually be better without bestiality, it always improves the chances of animals getting hurt. Maybe if literally everyone who engaged in bestiality knew what they were doing and does not want to hurt the animal, then it definitely would be a good thing.
But here's the thing: it's not like that.
Jacking off a german shepard while wearing nitrile gloves and taking notes is still legally bestiality. So, the law does get in the way. There are people interested in the topic, but the 'hands on' approach they'd need isnt considered ethical nor is it legal. It's risky for us researchers too.
I did not realize that.
I guess that's true, but I still think most people just put a 'wrong' sticker on it 'cuz they want to avoid it.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-14 23:56:44
Unless you're actually wasting your time.
And who are you to say if we are? I think this is just your excuse to not improve, yourself. You became so accustomed to failure that you've resigned yourself to it. It's easier that way, you likely think, to just say there's naught to be done. Because of course, you're the measure of what can be done, apparently. Not 30-30, or me, or any other activist... You. And somehow, there are veterans that have been in the fray for decades, longer than you've been alive I wager, and even they, with all their experiebce, are more open to success than you, despite being witness to countless failures and encroachment. They'd be justified if they became doomspeakers. But they aren't, and they aren't for a reason. If you don't trust me that there's light at the end of this tunnel, then trust them.
And I personally enjoy doing this, so it's no waste to me.
Well zoos suffer from it that's for sure.
Not always, but it definitely happens.
I don't recall causing any zoophiles to suffer when I advocate.
For you, it might help to do it on a throwaway.
But how can you be so sure on that?
Because I was one.
I may be missing something here because for some reason you and 30-30 can someone meet people who magically don't hate zoophilia.
Magic is a word meant to mask skill. What magic is, those sleights of hand, that is something that is earned and tempered over time.
And if it's always the other people, then what do we do about them?
That was sarcasm.
It is poor execution.
There's other things which do the same, like spaying and neutering.
Except it gets rid of that altogether.
And we can't just say ''well if it's for humans like that it's the same for mammals.''
I notice no difference when I do or don't help her out with, err, that.
Spay/neuter nukes the metabolism, leeches bone calcium, and a bunch of other stuff. We know this, both of us.
Also I didn't say it was the same. It wasn't, but my observations here have yielded homogenous phenomena.
I'd really like to know what kind of behavior they'd show.
Abuse can be done in different ways. I wouldn't call training abuse on it's own, but training can be abuse.
Study on abused dogs here. "abused dogs were reported as displaying significantly higher rates of aggression and fear directed toward unfamiliar humans and dogs, excitability, hyperactivity, attachment and attention-seeking behaviors, persistent barking, and miscellaneous strange or repetitive behaviors. "
And how would they exactly know who has sex with their animal or not?
I'm not sure what you meant, but if people are going to check out our animals, no thanks.
Like i said, hormone logging microchips. You don't need to worry about the sex part because the issue isn't the sex. Abuse is abuse, and it has a consistent endocrine response.
So what's the plan here?
How are you going to let this work?
I don't have to. This is already in development and is currently being vetted as a wearable.
I'm not sure what you mean with that.
Anyone involved in that is extremely dumb.
Safety research. The stuff you don't have empirical data on.
I really want to believe that.
But I have a feeling people will abuse the fact that bestiality has been illegal, that's how humans are.
Something being legal does not make it right.
As for the non-abusive zoos getting caught... How many of them have been caught?
I'm really against the idea of innocent creatures being punished, but people rarely get caught itfp.
There won't be more convictions anyway. I'd say a few hundred non abusive zoos have been caught in the past decade or so. The main objective isn't preventing frivolous convictions, but it helps. Saves a few lives in the process, too.
Yeah and if it isn't?
I'm strongly against these things. I don't want bestiality to be legal until these two misdeeds have a fix.
Do you realize that if we don't fix these things, bestiality being legal only hurts animals?
If it isn't, we'll have advanced our microchip technology enough that we'd be able to trace abuse remotely.
Also this law doesn't get enough convictions to do assuage abusers. And even if it does, then you'd have thrillseekers wanting to do it for the rush. It stops being a taboo to break when the climate about it changes, and the people that get their rocks off on the adrenaline rush don't have that anymore. It's a give and take.
Yeah, and I want 'stipulations' against these misdeeds.
Except we don't have them. And the thing is, we don't specifically need to research animals for them. Unless there's very specific behavior they show only when raped / fencehopped, where it's very obvious that it has happened.
We don't have empirical data on what would constitute sexual abuse.
We need plans so these things cannot be done. Let's just hope these plans don't interfere with my and my girl's privacy.
Hormone tracking is probably the best solution and has other benefits when your vet has a look. You don't want the most thorough solution, though. Privacy and justics are mutually exclusive in some capacity. The less information that the law has access to, the less people get caught, in this case.
And I really don't know how that can help thousands of animals.
It feels a bit redundant to say at this point, but research data. Spaying and neutering is on the out, so this information is better gotten sooner rather than later so we can figure out if veterinarians should be 'handling' this in some capacity.
I looked up to you, but I really can't look at you the same way when you think bestiality is something that's good for animals.
Really, I'm neutral. There are other interventions and more research that can be and still needs to be done. Making ethical zoosex legal, or at least digital stimulation, helps with that research as I've said. We don't know the extent of the benefits, nor do we know of thresholds for harm, really. Changing the climate around it will get ethical zoos valuable information. Creating a legal age for sex in various nonhuman animals is something you might be interested in, too. No more using juveniles the instant they're sexually able because you 'didn't know any better'.
And there's a reason why I support legalizing it with a pile of stipulations tacked on. If you haven't already, I suggest reading through the stipulations I linked you. The thing is, too, that this is an issue of animal rights. Nonhuman animals often get the knife when they're caught in the act, and don't have a right to make sexual decisions with their caretakers.
Because this world would actually be better without bestiality, it always improves the chances of animals getting hurt. Maybe if literally everyone who engaged in bestiality knew what they were doing and does not want to hurt the animal, then it definitely would be a good thing.
But here's the thing: it's not like that.
Making it legal means there can be regulation, educational services, and again... More research and development. The laws dont really do enough to help anything, and really only create a sense of exclusivity in thrillseekers, and fear in zoos. And of course, there's a proverbial army of non zoos that got into the act without considering the legality of it, that simply won't be caught. And even in the absense of sexual abuse, that doesn't stop abuse. If you treat a nonhuman animal like shit in the bedroom, odds are you do so too everywhere else.
I guess that's true, but I still think most people just put a 'wrong' sticker on it 'cuz they want to avoid it.
Give them a reason to not be afraid, and a legal way to do it, and they'll do it. Nonhuman animal sexual behavior is a more popular topic of study now, and the implications of interspecies intercourse is becoming a topic of interest as of late.
Oh and if you find a situation where a discussion is turning against you, I'm always available and willing to pitch in. I'm here for all of you, and not just because it's my responsibility as moderator.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-15 16:44:32
And who are you to say if we are? I think this is just your excuse to not improve, yourself. You became so accustomed to failure that you've resigned yourself to it. It's easier that way, you likely think, to just say there's naught to be done. Because of course, you're the measure of what can be done, apparently. Not 30-30, or me, or any other activist... You. And somehow, there are veterans that have been in the fray for decades, longer than you've been alive I wager, and even they, with all their experiebce, are more open to success than you, despite being witness to countless failures and encroachment. They'd be justified if they became doomspeakers. But they aren't, and they aren't for a reason. If you don't trust me that there's light at the end of this tunnel, then trust them.
And why do you think that?
I honestly think that what you are trying is so useless.
I even find it embarassing that I'm part of a community that's trying something they shouldn't.
It's not because of my failure, it's because of every zoo's failure.
There's a reason we haven't advanced. And that's exactly where every zoo's failure comes in.
I don't recall causing any zoophiles to suffer when I advocate.
No, I mean the fact that people ignore us when they know we're zoos.
Like you said, it helps that you're not a zoo.
Because I was one.
I mean how did you know it was 'poor execution?'
Spay/neuter nukes the metabolism, leeches bone calcium, and a bunch of other stuff. We know this, both of us.
Actually, I didn't and still don't.
Why'd you assume I knew? I'd like to see the post where I said that...
Study on abused dogs here. "abused dogs were reported as displaying significantly higher rates of aggression and fear directed toward unfamiliar humans and dogs, excitability, hyperactivity, attachment and attention-seeking behaviors, persistent barking, and miscellaneous strange or repetitive behaviors. "
Except it's not 100% accurate.
Some dogs have different personalities, and some are different breeds.
Not to mention some of these are common in dogs.
Especially with the breed I have, most of these.
Like i said, hormone logging microchips. You don't need to worry about the sex part because the issue isn't the sex. Abuse is abuse, and it has a consistent endocrine response.
It's a bit hard to get every animal chipped like that.
I doubt abusers will even get their animals chipped if that happens.
I wonder how it would even work. What if someone abuses another one's animal? The owner is always the wrongdoer?
The less information that the law has access to, the less people get caught, in this case.
Yeah and 'the law' should not know what I do to her.
So no thanks.
Really, I'm neutral.
Your obsession with it going legal really bothers me, then.
Creating a legal age for sex in various nonhuman animals is something you might be interested in, too. No more using juveniles the instant they're sexually able because you 'didn't know any better'.
I'm more interested in keeping it illegal until we find solutions for zoosadists without invading my privacy.
Age doesn't really matter if they're going to get raped anyways.
And there's a reason why I support legalizing it with a pile of stipulations tacked on. If you haven't already, I suggest reading through the stipulations I linked you. The thing is, too, that this is an issue of animal rights. Nonhuman animals often get the knife when they're caught in the act, and don't have a right to make sexual decisions with their caretakers.
Then why not change the laws instead of removing them?
Change them so the animal doesn't get punished, but the human does get punished.
These aren't even animal rights...
Like, what? The right to get fucked? K.
Making it legal means there can be regulation, educational services, and again... More research and development. The laws dont really do enough to help anything, and really only create a sense of exclusivity in thrillseekers, and fear in zoos. And of course, there's a proverbial army of non zoos that got into the act without considering the legality of it, that simply won't be caught. And even in the absense of sexual abuse, that doesn't stop abuse.
But it still stops some abuse.
Better than making bestiality legal, which only increases the chances of abuse.
More bestiality = more abuse, as long as humans stay how they are.
Unpredictable and mysterious.
If you treat a nonhuman animal like shit in the bedroom, odds are you do so too everywhere else.
Makes sense, but you can never know...
I'd comment on the last part of your post, but I have way worse, extremely scary things to worry about.
You can reply and I'll read it, but I won't reply.
A discussion needs to end somewhere, and well, like I said, I have something else to worry about.
Oh and by the way. I don't mean to insult you in any way or mean bad things. I'm saying this because you've talked about my behavior in these comments.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-15 21:38:22
And why do you think that?
I honestly think that what you are trying is so useless.
I even find it embarassing that I'm part of a community that's trying something they shouldn't.
It's not because of my failure, it's because of every zoo's failure.
There's a reason we haven't advanced. And that's exactly where every zoo's failure comes in.
... Except it's not being spearheaded by a zoophile. And a huge part of my efforts is growing the number of non zoos that will be willing to help. Like you said in your next response, non zoos are more predisposed to success than zoophiles. If you push them away, you're sabotaging both of us
I mean how did you know it was 'poor execution?'
Track record.
Actually, I didn't and still don't.
Why'd you assume I knew? I'd like to see the post where I said that...
Because it's been brought up several times and I assumed that you read discussions rather thoroughly. Pardon the false assumption.
Except it's not 100% accurate.
Some dogs have different personalities, and some are different breeds.
Not to mention some of these are common in dogs.
Especially with the breed I have, most of these.
This is just scratching the surface and isn't meant to be used on its own, you'd be using multiple lines of investigation ideally.
It's a bit hard to get every animal chipped like that.
I doubt abusers will even get their animals chipped if that happens.
I wonder how it would even work. What if someone abuses another one's animal? The owner is always the wrongdoer?
If a nonhuman animal is consistently abused and the owner is unaware, then there's a point where it becomes the owners fault for not knowing and creating a greater investment in their wellbeing.
Oh and microchipping is becoming compulsory, slowly but surely.
Yeah and 'the law' should not know what I do to her.
So no thanks.
In the absence of an ability to speak out against wrongdoings, there needs to be something that can be used to represent them.
Your obsession with it going legal really bothers me, then.
And how often do I talk about the legality of it? Once every few weeks, maybe.
I'm more interested in keeping it illegal until we find solutions for zoosadists without invading my privacy.
Age doesn't really matter if they're going to get raped anyways.
"You need to get more information on who the criminals are, but you better not get more information from me!" This is what I'm hearing. You won't get that. And that's not me being mean, a legal zoosex law simply wouldn't pass without it, I suspect. You see, zoos still wouldn't be trusted.
And tell me how age doesn't matter, when there are people honing in on their pets the instant they become sexual, because they'll enjoy it or they think that means they're sexually mature. Zoos and non zoos alike have an information shortage on their hands here.
Then why not change the laws instead of removing them?
Change them so the animal doesn't get punished, but the human does get punished.
Problem: let's say you have a brothel dog, raised for the fuckening. There's an interesting phenomena wherein human and nonhuman animals alike acquire hypersexuality as a result of extremely frequent sex. Since there's no immediate health issue and unconditional spay/neuter is probably going to lose its legality soon, we'd be at an impasse. The dog avoids further abuse, which would have happened with or without a blanket law because nonhuman animal prostitution or whatever you wish to call it wouldn't fly, but hypersexuality disorders would be exceedingly uncomfortable to simply quit cold turkey, esp for male dogs which are one of the more common brothel victims, so I've heard.
And of course, there is the issue of dependence in dogs. Some dogs become so dependent on their caretaker emotionally that they'll simply waste away with their sustained absence, so they end up dying slowly, often by starving themselves. And that's hard to treat.
So they get punished either way when you punish the human indiscriminately for zoosex. Hence why I'm okay with legal zoosex as long as there are stipulations.
These aren't even animal rights...
Like, what? The right to get fucked? K.
The right to choose or reject a human partner, ideally. And don't forget that the "fucking" can be and is ideally done/initiated by the nonhuman animal rather than the human. This extends to animal rights because of the concept of sexual agency. If you weren't aware, that concept, or rather, a supposed lack thereof in nonhuman animals forms the backbone of the moral justification behind artificial insemination and controlled breeding programs; essentially it's the idea that nonhuman animals don't make conscious choices about their mating habits, and it's all biological therefore artificial insemination isn't an impingement of choice on their part. Nonhuman animals being further recognized as their own agents throws tiny wrenches in alot of harmful things. The law can be, and should be tailored for nonhuman animals because we can use it as a precedent for future advancements and to secure further rights for them. I'm a massive proponent for nonhuman animal rights, and this is a reasonable right for them to have, I feel. There is also the possibility that veterinarians could help attend to this issue.
But it still stops some abuse.
Better than making bestiality legal, which only increases the chances of abuse.
More bestiality = more abuse, as long as humans stay how they are.
Unpredictable and mysterious.
Actually... Do you remember the prohibition era from history class? It's a show of a pretty predictable trait in humans, seeking objects of exclusivity. It didn't work, if you'll recall. People who had been drinking before... drank more. It was against the law, so there's no reason to moderate when the first sip is already a violation. Kids an adolescents were drinking, too. That created a huge issue though, because the bootleg alcohol stocking the nation's speakeasies was toxic, made even moreso when the formula for industrial grade alcohols was intentionally made more poisonous by the US government. It caused blindness, paralysis, and killed 33 in Manhattan in the span of three days. There were more alcohol related deaths in the prohibition era than ever before. And at the end of it all, the government couldn't step in, because the bootleg alcohol wasn't recognized as a beverage at that point. It was recognized as a poison. This goes for many substances, though. Cocaine, heroine, meth, LSD... why limit yourself when the first grain or drop is enough for you to be astray of the law? May as well just have a good trip at that point, right?.
Basically, it's not a guarantee of anything. We as a nation could be promoting flagrant and cruel acts of sexual abuse by merit of prohibition, and may simply be causing the criminals to cover their tracks better. If it was legal, but abuse laws were made more severe, they might be more likely to become careless, or may even stay their hand, as it were, so as to prevent punishment.
I'd comment on the last part of your post, but I have way worse, extremely scary things to worry about.
You can reply and I'll read it, but I won't reply.
A discussion needs to end somewhere, and well, like I said, I have something else to worry about.
Oh and by the way. I don't mean to insult you in any way or mean bad things. I'm saying this because you've talked about my behavior in these comments.
Ah, good luck with whatever's going on.
And you can't really insult me. :P
Oh and we just lost /u/zblack_dragon. Perhaps it's due to this conversation, perhaps something else, but he deleted this thread and he's probably not coming back. This is what I meant when I said you'd be sabotaging both of us.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 2 points on 2017-03-14 18:43:51
I have a similar attitude, but it's more from the sad fact that zoos don't seem willing to help themselves. Case in point, this whole discussion.
BurnedRowanbig ol' pupper 1 point on 2017-03-14 08:27:44
donate to my paypal?
30-30amator equae 5 points on 2017-03-14 10:24:12
Well, help is such a strong word...I´d rather call it support.
Fact is, we cannot be helped with our problems, not via the internet and not in a real eye-to-eye situation. But support is appreciated, I can assure you. Talking with us pariahs is surely a good start, especially when you´re not saying yes and amen to every single thing we say and do. Criticism from a normal person´s perspective without the usual namecalling would give us the possibility to learn, a willingness to do some research on your own without falling for cheap propaganda of either side also would "help".
And maybe you could talk with your friends about zoophilia..if you dare to take the risk. But don´t use what most "zoophiles" try to sell to society, focus on the bad treatment we zoos are exposed to rather than singing the "It´s harmless" litany. And if some of your friends can relate to us "vile animal rapists", you can encourage them to participate in this sub. We NEED normals to destroy the filter bubble our community has built for itself, we need people with a different perspective badly. We as a community have to find new ways to reach out to the normals, find compromises everyone can live with..but due to the enormous controversy , we seldom have a chance to talk to outsiders in a civil and rewarding way. Either it´s the usual "You´re all animal rapists" shrill yelling or outsiders fall for the usual "zoo propaganda". If you can bring some friends to talk to us dalits, that would be as much help as anyone can demand from someone.
silverwolf-tippysmat 2 points on 2017-03-14 13:46:05
Folks ain't gonna like my opinion here, but personally I don't need any help. I'm not sexually involved with, nor emotionally in "that way" with, my current companions nor think I will be. However, I didn't need legality, social acceptance, or to have other folks knowledge or approval of my past non-human relationships for them to be open, exciting, full and fulfilling. My lovers shared in every aspect of my life, including my bed, with out any of the above conventions, and did so needing from me only the same care and protections they would require even with such human inventions. Nor have I needed any of those. I have been quite able to ignore those expectations from society that a man marry or have human relationships if I've felt like not doing so, and there is no law saying I must, so I function also quite well with-out help.
It's nice you want to help, and I suppose there are those here who may benefit from advocacy, though I fail to see how, if you feel like advocating. I'll kindly decline the offered hand though...
YearningmiceZoophile 2 points on 2017-03-14 19:18:54
Hey, I disagree about not liking your opinion! It is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it and you acknowledge that it isn't the same for everyone. I like your opinion, and that you shared it. It's not my opinion though.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 2 points on 2017-03-15 04:42:03
thanks for coming here wanting to help. bet you didn't expect the shitstorm that got stirred up.
i admit to being a bit pessimistic, but ... IMO, it's difficult to find ways to help. as someone said here, trying to stick up for us in conversation is only likely to get you in trouble. people will start to think you're a zoo and that rarely ends well.
for now, i'd say that .. just the fact that you want to help is good enough. just knowing that there are non-zoos out there who don't see us all as horrible animal abusers, and seeing another person pop their head in here to say so makes us (or perhaps i should only speak for myself) feel a bit better.
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-03-18 18:03:03
Well, scared him off well enough to not get any help. LOL. One wonders if some folks just like being victims.
/r/zoophilia archive
I think the best you can do right now is if the subject comes up in a conversation, challenge the status quo. Argue on our behalf and show that not everyone is opposed. Be prepared for significant pushback to such opinions, however.
I think it's important to recognize too though that things can 'go wrong', as it were. Rattling off how zoos are all fine and dandy is a little uncanny. Even a short "there are a few exceptions, but..." helps make your argument appear as reasoned as it is.
Well, see, when I see the word "zoophile" I automatically think of an idealistic setting in which love is the norm, and little can go wrong.
Not all who use that term feel the same though, admittedly. But my bias was showing, yes.
I'd say that a show of solidarity helps a great deal. Stick around and discuss with us, if that's your cup of tea. We aren't to the point where activism will get zoos anywhere, but a community populated with people from within and 'without' is a great start for changing opinions on Reddit.
You can't.
I don't even know what we need help with anymore.
If it's laws, public image, etc. then don't waste your time.
You'll only suffer from it. Humans will accuse you of being a zoophile yourself and they will absolutely hate you.
The closest thing you can do is participate in the community.
But then again, I don't see why anyone would help us.
Well, of course all is naught with an attitude like that.
Obviously it is.
But I don't have that attitude for nothing.
Where exactly does our hope come from anyways?
It's like waiting for a god to show himself out of nowhere. We have no chance for anything.
What is there to help anyways?
And in the end, whatever helps us also helps fencehoppers, abusive bestialists, etc.
OP, myself, pretty much all other non-zoo, pro-zoo people; zoophiles, and yourself most importantly. We're all proof that if nothing else, you're not alone. Pessimism lends itself to nothing but harm, though. People come in, see hopelessness like this, then walk away thinking thinking "Welp, clearly it's not worth advocating for them if even they think it won't do anything". I say this (hopefully) as a friend and as a man of science... cautious positivity leads to better outcomes.
Yourself. Your partner. Everyone that wants to see zoophiles succeed. People with intact nonhuman animals that want to help relieve their companions sexual tension when they need it. The scientific community. This is an issue pertinent to nonhuman animal rights, human rights, ethics, the sciences, and more.
Acknowledging the sexual agency and competence of nonhuman animals is something that will help in more ways than you can count, and it'll help lift a proverbial iron curtain, again, in the sciences. R&D can begin in earnest on bestiality. It could mean the beginning of an era with a larger focus on nonhuman animals as their own agents... and we've already got a foundation for that.
Research in nonhuman animal cognition has highlighted much greater intellectual and cognitive homogeny with humans as of late. We've got cultured meat on the horizon, which will be a huge boon for animal rights and conservation, bringing nonhuman animals out of "necessary evil" territory. We're reaching a critical turning point in our society, and it's not an anthropocentric one. If we do nothing though, then we've got a bunch of animal rights groups that will make sure bestiality is stamped out for good, the pet trade is brutally regulated, and they'll be able to grow their influence even more, with enough money left over to buy gilded capes and pose as the heroes. Lots of the animal rights groups out there are organizations that I kind of want put in their place, and not just because they make my research more expensive. We only need to be smart about this. We don't need ad campaigns if we have the internet on our side, and we don't need lobbying money if we have voters on our side.
But it requires us to be forward looking and at least open to the possibility of progress. The wiki is part of that forward facing attitude, and welcoming non-zoos is another part.
If no advancements are made on the behalf of nonhuman animals, sure. That said, though, those offenses are illegal anyway, and abusive zoosex is the most visible in most cases(and abuse laws would pick up the slack in those cases accordingly). Pushing for the legality of zoosex, however, doesn't mean pushing for legalizing it in every sense of the word, mind you. I actually talked about a number of stipulations that you'd probably see in a 'legal zoosex' bill here.
If we always chose to stop pushing for something when a small minority would be slightly enabled to do bad, then we'd never get anywhere. Nothing is perfect, that's how it is, but imperfection isn't a justification not to do it. Life insurance is a great motive for a greedy spouse to turn a knife on their significant other, but does that mean we shouldn't allow life insurance? Of course not, because the benefits overall are much greater than the risk of Rob killing Nancy for insurance money. Money lends itself to corruption, but should we have avoided currency? No, because it's much, much easier to perform transactions with currency than trade goods. You get the idea.
It sucks that it happens, but we can't be so strictly puritanical that we opt to forget the good of every action in favor of the sin it can enable.
"We´re reaching a critical turning point"...gosh, sometimes I envy you for your optimism...I can´t see such a turning point, business goes on as usual. That´s the crux with humans...they only change their ways when they´re forced to by circumstances. As long as McD sells burgers, the blood won´t stop flowing from the slaughterhouse. As long as capitalism lives, it thrives on death and exploitation of Gaia. Or, as Karin Burger, a German blogger dedicated to criticising the animal welfare and anti zoo orgas (although she doesn´t accept zoophilia herself) has put it: "What all those activists don´t realise is that real animal welfare would overthrow capitalism and the entire world would be a totally different one...and not many are open for new things."
Yeah, you can be vegetarian or vegan and tell yourself what a morally superior person you are, but it´s a fact that the percentage of veggies has risen in Germany up to nearly 8 %....but the slaughterhouses continue their "work". The meat German veggies don´t eat will be exported, often to Africa, where the cheap imports destroy local infrastructure...hooray capitalism.
"Life insurance...(...)...of Rob killing Nancy for insurance money" Sorry to say, but that´s really stretching the basic idea beyond the limits. When ob kills Nancy with a knife, he´ll surely be in jail. Forensics et al. , you know...Not many get away with murder these days...but lots of animal abusers still get away ´cause DNA tests and other sophisticated scientific ways to rethrieve evidence are seldom applied to animals. You´re missing out on one little detail here...the idea behind zoophilia. This idea gets undermined every time one of the "small group of evildoers" (that isn´t as small as you might think) gets away with shit. Would you hand over your kids to Catholic priests? No? Why is that so? Most priests don´t abuse/rape children...so, why are these pictures in your head? (And I know they are...) See how it works? Why is the new pope so beloved? Because he´s probably the first one who acts and talks ACCORDINGLY to what he represents....just think about it.
Mind that you and I are in two very different worlds, and two very different fields. I'm a man of science, my colleagues people of science. I have a different perspective on things, accordingly, but I'd like to say it is also evidenced.
I already mentioned meat cultures. They're cheaper and faster to produce, and you have more control over the meat. There won't be a reason to farm nonhuman animals for meat once it's perfected because it's cheaper, more efficient, healthier, more consistent, easier to process, longer lasting, and much easier to automate(literally just better). You're hemorrhaging money in the future as a meat using chain if you don't try setting up a bioreactor and making your own meat, or at least buying from a producer that does. McDonalds is perfect for vetting this stuff since consistency is their main shtick, and this makes consistency a cinch.
Capitalism will temper itself in time, as automation and the masses compel it to.
That's exactly it, though, it is stretching it. Rob might still try. It's not the risk of him getting away with it that I cited... it's the risk of him doing it. It's an ever-so-minute risk, but it's there. There's just no reason to stop life insurance because of it, though.
Oh, and forensics quality depends on the case, crime density and locality. The best forensic analysis is the best for a reason, but you rarely get the best.
This isn't an issue with the law, it's an issue with enforcement. It's still not that common of an offense. There's a reason why murder has such a sophisticated system behind its enforcement and bestiality doesn't. There's also the issue of safety information. Right now... Well, there's nothing official, and nothing that's really in the open about all this, so we have people going off of vague information they got from strangers on the internet, or nothing at all. If it begins being legalized again, we can do research on this topic, get a scientific take on "sex safety with X" and 'when it's time' which means less accidental trauma, and... those people that would have said "Fuck the law!" might consider reading up and treading more lightly in consideration of the fact that what they're doing is legal and there's much less incentive to break the law in that case, prying eyes or no. I said this in response to warcanine as well, but You'll be getting increased R&D into preventing sexual abuse due to pushback against it being made legal. That's kind of a win-win, though, I guess.
The thing is though, I have numbers on pedophilia, as with many things, and am pretty neutral about them. Most pedophiles don't follow through, the vast majority, in fact. And even more keep silent, and also don't follow through... Because they don't want to hurt children. It just so happens that like zoophiles they genuinely care about children... pardon the comparison. So, I'd be fine about even a confirmed pedophilic priest dealing with my hypothetical kids as long as they don't start preaching to them... because even then the risk is practically nil. It's also why I'd be fine with most of the people here petsitting for me. There are perverts, but the risk is still exceptionally low, and I can trust their attention to detail for the most part. It may even be that a pedophile would be more devoted to the wellbeing of my hypothetical children because of their sexual disposition, accordingly. This kind of stigma reminds me of shark attacks. Each story is publicized in vivid detail, but they are so because there isn't enough volume to justify vagueries. And thus, people are more afraid of sharks than they are about car crashes, despite the absence of risk.
Is this a prevailing approach? Probably not. I suppose I might think differently from most, I contemplate and study things before allowing myself to form an opinion, and I often take words I have yet to verify with a grain of salt. I don't know about that part of me in particular terribly well, but I know what you mean. I'm simply too analytical for that example to apply to me, though. Anyway, I'd say that most people don't really think of catholic priests as pedophiles, anyway. It's a controversy that became a meme, then was slowly forgotten, far as I've seen.
Yeah, and if I look at the amount of antis vs. supporters/zoos...
I don't think I have to explain that. We zoos are more lonely than you think.
That was the point of my comment.
I really don't care what humans do in their free time, but supporting zoophilia just seems sad.
Trying to support zoophilia is like trying to revive the dead.
Everyone will laugh at you, and it just won't work. It's a sad attempt.
There's people that think that...?
Yeah, you really can't tell me you jerk off your dog and don't do it just because you want to help them. Mmmnnm, sure.
But then again, that's not even a good reason.
And that 'era' starts with zoophilia or bestiality?
That's ridiculous. Everyone avoids this subject, and why would they even start here?
Yeah so? There's nothing else to do.
We can't do anything.
And how do you know that?
I don't believe so. You can have abusive sex without anyone knowing.
Animals can't really say of someone abused them or not.
It's a very good reason to not support bestiality.
Oh of course.
You supporters do your thing.
I'd rather not watch, though. It's sad to see nothing change even though people are trying so hard.
But you know what? It really doesn't matter anymore.
I can't change anyone's mind. I've never convinced someone different.
I just won't look at the sad attempts anymore.
Nothing will change as long as I live anyways.
I don't care what happens to zoophilia after my death.
Because I wanted to support zoophilia for only my own good.
I can't profit from that after I die.
But finally I realized that nothing would change anyways.
What if we're suddenly accepted? What if bestiality is suddenly legal?
It won't change a damn thing. Maybe it'll increase the chances of animals getting hurt. Ahem, fencehoppers, zoosadists, etc. That's all.
Then don't make it worse for yourself.
EDIT: We also don't have numbers. There's an old saying though, that I just remembered. "The outraged are the most outspoken". A negative response is always louder than a positive one, even if the positive one has more people.
Funny thing, nobody's laughed at me yet. I've been met with puzzled people, astonishment, admiration, even, but not laughter for it(EDIT: Except from you, maybe.). I've discussed this with over a dozen people IRL, and have a perfect track record of changing their views. This is something that happens cumulatively. Your efforts aren't going to seem effectual at first, but that's how most things are. A towering redwood starts with a tiny seed.
Nope, it's sexual agency that'll do it. That 'era' starts with a number of other criteria that i outlined, and some that I didn't. Changing public opinion here will help trigger a number of additional inquiries.
I'd do it if it came to it. It's not an issue of liking it, it's an issue of health, both physically and mentally... and preventing unwanted reproduction. It's a meager price to pay for the enhanced health of a pet.
If you don't try growing support, then no, no you can't. I've had no less than a dozen of my own friends go from anti zoo or zoo neutral to pro zoo fairly quickly after discussing it with them(Probably helps that I'm not a zoophile myself). That's just me, one person, talking about it. And who knows who they'll change the minds of when it comes up in conversation? Ideas propagate themselves through people, and they do so exponentially. The great thing about my friends is, the majority of them are biologists and scientists by trade. They're especially valuable to the cause, even in light of the reasonable trepidation that has been brought up on the matter.
It's the most visible because physical coercion and psychological abuse both have visible signs that veterinarians can hone in on. There are classes that veterinarians can take for this very thing.
I forgot to mention one thing... Heroine and cocaine are illegal and information about it is suppressed accordingly... and there is no recourse to find verifiable safety information. If it's made legal, that means we can research it, we can get that information out there, and we can prevent unintentional harm. Making it legal means the people that would have said "fuck the law!" might decide that since it's legal they may as well adhere to the stipulations it brings with it. Also, with it being legal, there may be more R&D put into preventing abuse.
No offense, but your reply comes off more as edgy/angsty teenager than anything else.
What do you mean?
I really don't think it works that way.
There's a reason why these laws exist and the lack of supporters.
I don't think we can deny the fact that the majority of people are against zoophilia and bestiality.
Well, a lot of people did laugh at me.
I got all the opposite from what you got. Nothing but disrespect and name calling.
And these are your friends, and not to mention you're not a zoo.
I can't say these things to my friends. I'd lose them instantly.
I 'baited' them to talk about it.
Let's just say that if they'd find out that no one would ever see me again.
And the reason I laugh at anyone trying is because it's no use.
I really don't want to explain it again.
You're completely right on that!
I first thought I might change some people views, then lost hope...
Luckily, I DID change their views! By bringing up that I was a zoophile they realized they actually hated it and also hated me!
The effect was quite impressive!
That profile raiding, that whole ''trying to get the dogfucker's IP'' thing, all that sort of stuff. I'm surprised I'm not as popular as Aluzky now! Hey, ever heard of ''The Delusional Degenerate Dogfucker Quixenare'' yet?
No? Well I should've done better 5-6 months ago!
Yeah and how exactly are we going to do this again?
Humans avoid bestiality. Nobody wants to talk about it.
And if it's illegal, it's no one's problem. Except for zoos of course, but nobod-... the majority of humanity does not care about us.
Except sex is not necessary to one's health.
There's enough animals who aren't spayed or neutered and don't have sex that live the exact same life.
If you don't agree I'd really like to know about why you think that.
I'm really interested, too. I'll cut the whole sex part and see if it brings any change to mine.
Yeah YOU did, but I still have to hear other's stories.
I've changed no one's mind. What have I done wrong?
How did YOU do it?
Do I have to link you to arguments so you can see where I've fucked up so badly?
I've only made people more hateful towards zoophilia, just by waking them up about zoophilia existing.
I've tried being nice, I've tried being smart, I've tried being a dick just like them. What is it that I'm missing?
Am I missing an important part of zoo arguments?
That's true. I only keep hearing how I'm a disgusting person, completely ignoring the actual topic.
And sometimes they don't even know I'm a zoophile and they just leave because the topic is disgusting. But when they know I'm a zoophile, it gets way worse.
Yeah, but have any of them been against zoophilia at all?
Is this is an exact group of 12 people that you have convinced?
And you said that the majority of them are biologists and scientists.
But the thing is, I want the public to accept us, not just a specific group of people.
That makes sense, but 'invisible' abusive zoosex is easily possible.
Don't physically harm the animal, that's all you have to do.
But still, how would you know that abusive zoosex is going on?
No no, I'm not talking about the evidence. I'm talking about the reason they're inspecting your animal in the first place.
Why would they? If bestiality is illegal, you'll end up in big problems anyways. If bestiality is legal, then there is no reason to inspect that animal, so abusive zoosex can be done without anyone knowing.
As for psychological abuse, I really doubt you can know that.
It probably would be very inaccurate, every animal acts different, including their sexual behavior.
This is one of my biggest concerns about turning bestiality legal.
We can never just know that that one zoophile a few doors away is not abusive or not. Another reason why I don't trust my own 'kind.'
Oh, and making bestiality legal just to research it is dumb.
Changing the laws probably won't do much for non-abusive zoophiles, though.
But in if it has an effect for us non-abusive zoophiles, it will also have a positive effect for zoosadists, fenceh- you know what I mean.
So that means in the mean time when they're researching, animals are getting raped by those crooks.
That's not worth it at all.
Not to mention, who wants to research this subject?
Why hasn't it been researched before? No no, the laws don't stop people from researching, it's the fact that everybody runs away from this subject.
I thought this counted for all my angry comments here.
Well, I have no idea how to change it. I'm just saying what I think.
There's no point in stifling an opportunity for a better outcome.
I'm not putting my name out in support of bestiality either. Lots of your support is anon.
Yeah, and it lends me credibility. I don't appear to benefit from it.
More angsty teenager. It's not poor execution, it's the other people. Of course.
Create rapport, then create interest. We're working on the former right now. There are more receptive demographics, and more receptive generations, I've found, but we can't effectively target them online, nor do we necessarily need to.
Well for one, it can decrease risk of prostate cancer in males. Using human models, I'd suspect bouts of sexual frustration in the complete absence of it that would be observed as aggression. Worse in males, of course. I'd expect the rush of endorphins to be the same, so there's systemic benefits there. It's fair to say that the human benefits of sex extend to most mammals. The effects would be mostly psychological and of varying degree, so they could be difficult to discern.
I'd have to see it to know.
Unless I become omniscient while I sleep, yes. ^^fingers ^^crossed
Being patient helps. I also have a habit of highlighting when something needs more research before we know for certain. You want to have a reasoned approach. Not "smart pro zoo", keep it neutral and academic. Worst case, you make an ass out of a bunch of people on the internet. You do need to be informed, or at least have sources handy.
In order, a few yes, more than 12 less than 15, they are, and they're credible and can shift public perception with topical studies. Well, not them in particular, but everyone knows eachother at some point, doubly so here.
Behavior changes. You can lube up all you want but if you make habit of subjugating your pet, it shows.
If its legal they can still check to ensure there is no abuse taking place. Itd be handled on a state by state basis and im sure some would be more intensive about it.
Not just behavior, you can run bloodwork on them, check for increased levels of stress hormones beyond the norm. It's reliable enough without bloodwork though since most animals act within certain margins normally.
Microchips that log stress hormones, record the mean, observe frequency of spikes, intensity of spikes, you've got probable cause.
So we can prevent another person from getting their large intestine ripped open by a horse penis.
Change the people to change the laws. By the time its legal status changes the social climate will have changed with it. Oh and less convictions for ethical zoos of course.
If the abuse is visible, no help. If they get caught trespassing, no help. The only thing that changes is that there would be a legal avenue that they can go down.
This is why you have stipulations in laws. Very few get caught anyway, and their research would be more valuable than a few dozen abusers getting off the hook in the coming decades(along with the aforementioned ethical zoos).Their research may help thousands of nonhuman animals, millions perhaps.
Jacking off a german shepard while wearing nitrile gloves and taking notes is still legally bestiality. So, the law does get in the way. There are people interested in the topic, but the 'hands on' approach they'd need isnt considered ethical nor is it legal. It's risky for us researchers too.
Start with your worldview.
This thread is a good thing. We, or some greater representation of zoophiles inspired a non zoo enough to ask how they can help out. That's powerful. It means we did something right, very right.
Unless you're actually wasting your time.
Okay?
Well zoos suffer from it that's for sure.
Not always, but it definitely happens.
But how can you be so sure on that?
I may be missing something here because for some reason you and 30-30 can someone meet people who magically don't hate zoophilia.
And if it's always the other people, then what do we do about them?
There's other things which do the same, like spaying and neutering.
Except it gets rid of that altogether.
And we can't just say ''well if it's for humans like that it's the same for mammals.''
I notice no difference when I do or don't help her out with, err, that.
I'll send you a pm. Edit: nvm this.
I'd really like to know what kind of behavior they'd show.
Abuse can be done in different ways. I wouldn't call training abuse on it's own, but training can be abuse.
And how would they exactly know who has sex with their animal or not?
I'm not sure what you meant, but if people are going to check out our animals, no thanks.
Same thing again, how'd you know who shags their animal or not?
So what's the plan here?
How are you going to let this work?
I'm not sure what you mean with that.
Anyone involved in that is extremely dumb.
I really want to believe that.
But I have a feeling people will abuse the fact that bestiality has been illegal, that's how humans are.
Something being legal does not make it right.
As for the non-abusive zoos getting caught... How many of them have been caught?
I'm really against the idea of innocent creatures being punished, but people rarely get caught itfp.
Yeah and if it isn't?
I'm strongly against these things. I don't want bestiality to be legal until these two misdeeds have a fix.
Do you realize that if we don't fix these things, bestiality being legal only hurts animals?
Yeah, and I want 'stipulations' against these misdeeds.
Except we don't have them. And the thing is, we don't specifically need to research animals for them. Unless there's very specific behavior they show only when raped / fencehopped, where it's very obvious that it has happened.
We need plans so these things cannot be done. Let's just hope these plans don't interfere with my and my girl's privacy.
And I really don't know how that can help thousands of animals.
I looked up to you, but I really can't look at you the same way when you think bestiality is something that's good for animals.
Because this world would actually be better without bestiality, it always improves the chances of animals getting hurt. Maybe if literally everyone who engaged in bestiality knew what they were doing and does not want to hurt the animal, then it definitely would be a good thing.
But here's the thing: it's not like that.
I did not realize that.
I guess that's true, but I still think most people just put a 'wrong' sticker on it 'cuz they want to avoid it.
And who are you to say if we are? I think this is just your excuse to not improve, yourself. You became so accustomed to failure that you've resigned yourself to it. It's easier that way, you likely think, to just say there's naught to be done. Because of course, you're the measure of what can be done, apparently. Not 30-30, or me, or any other activist... You. And somehow, there are veterans that have been in the fray for decades, longer than you've been alive I wager, and even they, with all their experiebce, are more open to success than you, despite being witness to countless failures and encroachment. They'd be justified if they became doomspeakers. But they aren't, and they aren't for a reason. If you don't trust me that there's light at the end of this tunnel, then trust them.
And I personally enjoy doing this, so it's no waste to me.
I don't recall causing any zoophiles to suffer when I advocate.
For you, it might help to do it on a throwaway.
Because I was one.
Magic is a word meant to mask skill. What magic is, those sleights of hand, that is something that is earned and tempered over time.
That was sarcasm.
It is poor execution.
Spay/neuter nukes the metabolism, leeches bone calcium, and a bunch of other stuff. We know this, both of us.
Also I didn't say it was the same. It wasn't, but my observations here have yielded homogenous phenomena.
Study on abused dogs here. "abused dogs were reported as displaying significantly higher rates of aggression and fear directed toward unfamiliar humans and dogs, excitability, hyperactivity, attachment and attention-seeking behaviors, persistent barking, and miscellaneous strange or repetitive behaviors. "
Like i said, hormone logging microchips. You don't need to worry about the sex part because the issue isn't the sex. Abuse is abuse, and it has a consistent endocrine response.
I don't have to. This is already in development and is currently being vetted as a wearable.
Safety research. The stuff you don't have empirical data on.
There won't be more convictions anyway. I'd say a few hundred non abusive zoos have been caught in the past decade or so. The main objective isn't preventing frivolous convictions, but it helps. Saves a few lives in the process, too.
If it isn't, we'll have advanced our microchip technology enough that we'd be able to trace abuse remotely.
Also this law doesn't get enough convictions to do assuage abusers. And even if it does, then you'd have thrillseekers wanting to do it for the rush. It stops being a taboo to break when the climate about it changes, and the people that get their rocks off on the adrenaline rush don't have that anymore. It's a give and take.
We don't have empirical data on what would constitute sexual abuse.
Hormone tracking is probably the best solution and has other benefits when your vet has a look. You don't want the most thorough solution, though. Privacy and justics are mutually exclusive in some capacity. The less information that the law has access to, the less people get caught, in this case.
It feels a bit redundant to say at this point, but research data. Spaying and neutering is on the out, so this information is better gotten sooner rather than later so we can figure out if veterinarians should be 'handling' this in some capacity.
Really, I'm neutral. There are other interventions and more research that can be and still needs to be done. Making ethical zoosex legal, or at least digital stimulation, helps with that research as I've said. We don't know the extent of the benefits, nor do we know of thresholds for harm, really. Changing the climate around it will get ethical zoos valuable information. Creating a legal age for sex in various nonhuman animals is something you might be interested in, too. No more using juveniles the instant they're sexually able because you 'didn't know any better'.
And there's a reason why I support legalizing it with a pile of stipulations tacked on. If you haven't already, I suggest reading through the stipulations I linked you. The thing is, too, that this is an issue of animal rights. Nonhuman animals often get the knife when they're caught in the act, and don't have a right to make sexual decisions with their caretakers.
Making it legal means there can be regulation, educational services, and again... More research and development. The laws dont really do enough to help anything, and really only create a sense of exclusivity in thrillseekers, and fear in zoos. And of course, there's a proverbial army of non zoos that got into the act without considering the legality of it, that simply won't be caught. And even in the absense of sexual abuse, that doesn't stop abuse. If you treat a nonhuman animal like shit in the bedroom, odds are you do so too everywhere else.
Give them a reason to not be afraid, and a legal way to do it, and they'll do it. Nonhuman animal sexual behavior is a more popular topic of study now, and the implications of interspecies intercourse is becoming a topic of interest as of late.
Oh and if you find a situation where a discussion is turning against you, I'm always available and willing to pitch in. I'm here for all of you, and not just because it's my responsibility as moderator.
And why do you think that?
I honestly think that what you are trying is so useless.
I even find it embarassing that I'm part of a community that's trying something they shouldn't.
It's not because of my failure, it's because of every zoo's failure.
There's a reason we haven't advanced. And that's exactly where every zoo's failure comes in.
No, I mean the fact that people ignore us when they know we're zoos.
Like you said, it helps that you're not a zoo.
I mean how did you know it was 'poor execution?'
Actually, I didn't and still don't.
Why'd you assume I knew? I'd like to see the post where I said that...
Except it's not 100% accurate.
Some dogs have different personalities, and some are different breeds.
Not to mention some of these are common in dogs.
Especially with the breed I have, most of these.
It's a bit hard to get every animal chipped like that.
I doubt abusers will even get their animals chipped if that happens.
I wonder how it would even work. What if someone abuses another one's animal? The owner is always the wrongdoer?
Yeah and 'the law' should not know what I do to her.
So no thanks.
Your obsession with it going legal really bothers me, then.
I'm more interested in keeping it illegal until we find solutions for zoosadists without invading my privacy.
Age doesn't really matter if they're going to get raped anyways.
Then why not change the laws instead of removing them?
Change them so the animal doesn't get punished, but the human does get punished.
These aren't even animal rights...
Like, what? The right to get fucked? K.
But it still stops some abuse.
Better than making bestiality legal, which only increases the chances of abuse.
More bestiality = more abuse, as long as humans stay how they are.
Unpredictable and mysterious.
Makes sense, but you can never know...
I'd comment on the last part of your post, but I have way worse, extremely scary things to worry about.
You can reply and I'll read it, but I won't reply.
A discussion needs to end somewhere, and well, like I said, I have something else to worry about.
Oh and by the way. I don't mean to insult you in any way or mean bad things. I'm saying this because you've talked about my behavior in these comments.
... Except it's not being spearheaded by a zoophile. And a huge part of my efforts is growing the number of non zoos that will be willing to help. Like you said in your next response, non zoos are more predisposed to success than zoophiles. If you push them away, you're sabotaging both of us
Track record.
Because it's been brought up several times and I assumed that you read discussions rather thoroughly. Pardon the false assumption.
This is just scratching the surface and isn't meant to be used on its own, you'd be using multiple lines of investigation ideally.
If a nonhuman animal is consistently abused and the owner is unaware, then there's a point where it becomes the owners fault for not knowing and creating a greater investment in their wellbeing.
Oh and microchipping is becoming compulsory, slowly but surely.
In the absence of an ability to speak out against wrongdoings, there needs to be something that can be used to represent them.
And how often do I talk about the legality of it? Once every few weeks, maybe.
"You need to get more information on who the criminals are, but you better not get more information from me!" This is what I'm hearing. You won't get that. And that's not me being mean, a legal zoosex law simply wouldn't pass without it, I suspect. You see, zoos still wouldn't be trusted.
And tell me how age doesn't matter, when there are people honing in on their pets the instant they become sexual, because they'll enjoy it or they think that means they're sexually mature. Zoos and non zoos alike have an information shortage on their hands here.
Problem: let's say you have a brothel dog, raised for the fuckening. There's an interesting phenomena wherein human and nonhuman animals alike acquire hypersexuality as a result of extremely frequent sex. Since there's no immediate health issue and unconditional spay/neuter is probably going to lose its legality soon, we'd be at an impasse. The dog avoids further abuse, which would have happened with or without a blanket law because nonhuman animal prostitution or whatever you wish to call it wouldn't fly, but hypersexuality disorders would be exceedingly uncomfortable to simply quit cold turkey, esp for male dogs which are one of the more common brothel victims, so I've heard.
And of course, there is the issue of dependence in dogs. Some dogs become so dependent on their caretaker emotionally that they'll simply waste away with their sustained absence, so they end up dying slowly, often by starving themselves. And that's hard to treat.
So they get punished either way when you punish the human indiscriminately for zoosex. Hence why I'm okay with legal zoosex as long as there are stipulations.
The right to choose or reject a human partner, ideally. And don't forget that the "fucking" can be and is ideally done/initiated by the nonhuman animal rather than the human. This extends to animal rights because of the concept of sexual agency. If you weren't aware, that concept, or rather, a supposed lack thereof in nonhuman animals forms the backbone of the moral justification behind artificial insemination and controlled breeding programs; essentially it's the idea that nonhuman animals don't make conscious choices about their mating habits, and it's all biological therefore artificial insemination isn't an impingement of choice on their part. Nonhuman animals being further recognized as their own agents throws tiny wrenches in alot of harmful things. The law can be, and should be tailored for nonhuman animals because we can use it as a precedent for future advancements and to secure further rights for them. I'm a massive proponent for nonhuman animal rights, and this is a reasonable right for them to have, I feel. There is also the possibility that veterinarians could help attend to this issue.
Actually... Do you remember the prohibition era from history class? It's a show of a pretty predictable trait in humans, seeking objects of exclusivity. It didn't work, if you'll recall. People who had been drinking before... drank more. It was against the law, so there's no reason to moderate when the first sip is already a violation. Kids an adolescents were drinking, too. That created a huge issue though, because the bootleg alcohol stocking the nation's speakeasies was toxic, made even moreso when the formula for industrial grade alcohols was intentionally made more poisonous by the US government. It caused blindness, paralysis, and killed 33 in Manhattan in the span of three days. There were more alcohol related deaths in the prohibition era than ever before. And at the end of it all, the government couldn't step in, because the bootleg alcohol wasn't recognized as a beverage at that point. It was recognized as a poison. This goes for many substances, though. Cocaine, heroine, meth, LSD... why limit yourself when the first grain or drop is enough for you to be astray of the law? May as well just have a good trip at that point, right?.
Basically, it's not a guarantee of anything. We as a nation could be promoting flagrant and cruel acts of sexual abuse by merit of prohibition, and may simply be causing the criminals to cover their tracks better. If it was legal, but abuse laws were made more severe, they might be more likely to become careless, or may even stay their hand, as it were, so as to prevent punishment.
Ah, good luck with whatever's going on.
And you can't really insult me. :P
Oh and we just lost /u/zblack_dragon. Perhaps it's due to this conversation, perhaps something else, but he deleted this thread and he's probably not coming back. This is what I meant when I said you'd be sabotaging both of us.
I have a similar attitude, but it's more from the sad fact that zoos don't seem willing to help themselves. Case in point, this whole discussion.
donate to my paypal?
Well, help is such a strong word...I´d rather call it support. Fact is, we cannot be helped with our problems, not via the internet and not in a real eye-to-eye situation. But support is appreciated, I can assure you. Talking with us pariahs is surely a good start, especially when you´re not saying yes and amen to every single thing we say and do. Criticism from a normal person´s perspective without the usual namecalling would give us the possibility to learn, a willingness to do some research on your own without falling for cheap propaganda of either side also would "help".
And maybe you could talk with your friends about zoophilia..if you dare to take the risk. But don´t use what most "zoophiles" try to sell to society, focus on the bad treatment we zoos are exposed to rather than singing the "It´s harmless" litany. And if some of your friends can relate to us "vile animal rapists", you can encourage them to participate in this sub. We NEED normals to destroy the filter bubble our community has built for itself, we need people with a different perspective badly. We as a community have to find new ways to reach out to the normals, find compromises everyone can live with..but due to the enormous controversy , we seldom have a chance to talk to outsiders in a civil and rewarding way. Either it´s the usual "You´re all animal rapists" shrill yelling or outsiders fall for the usual "zoo propaganda". If you can bring some friends to talk to us dalits, that would be as much help as anyone can demand from someone.
Folks ain't gonna like my opinion here, but personally I don't need any help. I'm not sexually involved with, nor emotionally in "that way" with, my current companions nor think I will be. However, I didn't need legality, social acceptance, or to have other folks knowledge or approval of my past non-human relationships for them to be open, exciting, full and fulfilling. My lovers shared in every aspect of my life, including my bed, with out any of the above conventions, and did so needing from me only the same care and protections they would require even with such human inventions. Nor have I needed any of those. I have been quite able to ignore those expectations from society that a man marry or have human relationships if I've felt like not doing so, and there is no law saying I must, so I function also quite well with-out help.
It's nice you want to help, and I suppose there are those here who may benefit from advocacy, though I fail to see how, if you feel like advocating. I'll kindly decline the offered hand though...
Hey, I disagree about not liking your opinion! It is your opinion and you are fully entitled to it and you acknowledge that it isn't the same for everyone. I like your opinion, and that you shared it. It's not my opinion though.
thanks for coming here wanting to help. bet you didn't expect the shitstorm that got stirred up.
i admit to being a bit pessimistic, but ... IMO, it's difficult to find ways to help. as someone said here, trying to stick up for us in conversation is only likely to get you in trouble. people will start to think you're a zoo and that rarely ends well.
for now, i'd say that .. just the fact that you want to help is good enough. just knowing that there are non-zoos out there who don't see us all as horrible animal abusers, and seeing another person pop their head in here to say so makes us (or perhaps i should only speak for myself) feel a bit better.
Well, scared him off well enough to not get any help. LOL. One wonders if some folks just like being victims.