So my last post was bad but necessary for me in a way. I will be deleting that post because its trash, and I know this community dues not need this kind of shit. that post represent the opposite of why I came hear, when I first came hear I was seeking wisdom from people with experience, I asked meaningful questions. As time went on my needs and reasons of coming hear have lessened. I don't need to come hear any more because I am more confident thin I was, more wiser. Zoophilia is part of something bigger which is me, it is not my whole identity. I wright this because I want every body else to realize this about them self's. Don't wast your life on internet activism. Live your life, prosper in health and happiness. I believe living a good life will do us allot more for us thin protesting in the streets.
/r/zoophilia archive
I agree with the part about not giving into protesting, whether online or off. Basically it is a waste of time. All of that energy could be used to better your life or the lives of others, and also focus on what really matters. I can't stand seeing the community rip itself apart over this. Why is it so important to legalize this sexuality? Just do whatever you have been doing, and stay safe. Nobody even cares about zoos as much as most of the community seems to believe.
well, nice to see you are still alive.
What is "alive"? We all define it differently. Is it simply breathing?
Or is it something more?
Just saying nice to see you closing your account wasn't combined with you killing yourself.
Research.
Without a doubt you are a mad scientist.
Or do you not want the science community helping to figure out sex safety? That's why it should be a priority. Your animal partner comes first, right? Well, advocating for this will help sexually active zoos and ah... nonhuman anthrophiles both. We could finallyy get answers to issues that are hotly debated in this community, too.
I don't mean for that to come off as aggressive, but sex science ain't mad science.
I don't care about this research.
What answer will it bring me? If it's "to be sure that bestiality isn't rape" then I especially don't care.
Because if I wasn't so sure about that in the first place I shouldn't have done it. Any zoo who is not sure if bestiality is right shouldn't do it.
These are fucked up and selfish thoughts.
And I wonder...
What if it answers the question "when is the right age for this specific animal?"
Well, I'm also 100% sure with my answer on dogs.
But honestly, what WOULD happen if this research brought us the answer: 5 Years old is the right age? That seems impossible, but imagine if that was the answer.
What would all these dog zoos do?
Just 'brush' it off?
I'd definitely get rid of my own life, but I know most people would just "eeehh it happened and I didn't know about it not my prob."
I really wonder what it would case.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing because I fear the truth (I don't, even) but it's pretty interesting to think about.
And honestly, I don't want bestiality to be legal just for research.
But whatever floats your boat. Making bestiality legal is like proving a god exists imo.
Maximizing pleasure for both parties, and like I said in the comment your replied to: "helping to figure out sex safety", maybe a golden frequency for sex that maximizes the health benefits of it for different species. You want people to take the safest route, right? Then you want an information authority to be testing and detailing that route, and not just relating to age. The possibilities are pretty diverse, and many more are probably rather unexpected. Perhaps in studying this, they find a new medical treatment for a disease in nonhuman animals? It happens with humans.
The existence of this research will be predicated on an officiated and specific legalization of the act. So, legislators would adjust the law accordingly, modifying the minimum age that allows sexual contact. People won't be terribly inclined to break the law(or the data and guidance of a scientifica authority) even if it means an extra few years of staying their hands.
Heck, it might encourage them to adopt.
I mean, it's fair to say it's not entirely your fault. In the absence of information, what's to be done, you know? At that point it's just important that you'd resolve to avoid it in the future.
I've discussed this with you before and shared the understanding that there are about 4 other areas that would also benefit from it (and from the developments leading up to it) in some capacity.
And making bestiality legal doesn't seem right to me.
I don't want to sacrifice a few animals to get raped just for research.
How will this ''maximize'' pleasure for both parties?
I'm probably assuming the wrong thing here...
C'mon now, everyone knows how to do the 'sexes.'
And like I said, I believe that we already know what we must know.
Or at least the majority of zoos.
I was right. Just 'brush' it off. Wouldn't be a big deal right?
Yes, yourself would be to blame.
I'd probably say something something like ''The fuck's wrong with you man?'' if I didn't change my ways.
If this was true, I'd kill myself. I'm not insane, I wouldn't deserve life after harming something I loved with my heart and even thinking it's right and even trying to change people's opinions telling them this shit's right.
I'd deserve the worst punishment known to man, same counts for any other zoo who did the same.
This isn't to be forgiven.
Stupidity and delusion aren't excuses for rape.
I'm close to going insane again but I won't let somebody's opinion bother me again.
You are way too forgiving.
I probably asked you this already, but I'll ask it again if that's true.
I mean, you can choose not to answer it if you will.
What makes you think that people will accept zoophilia?
We are a minority. People don't care about us.
They don't care about our rights.
People are not going to stick time into researching bestiality.
And even if they do, it's because they're interested in it, not because they want bestiality to be legal.
You know that gays aren't even accepted in some places?
If people can't accept gays, they can't accept zoophiles.
There's so many reasons people are against us.
Animals being 'lower' than us is a good reason according to them.
And we're not normal, that already is a good reason enough too.
People would want things illegal just because they aren't considered normal.
And again, how many people have sex with animals again?
You're pleasing nobody in the end. Or nobodies, rather. As well, horny bestialists will definitely be profiting from a ''zoophilia victory.''
It's not just pleasure, but how that pleasure manifests itself, too. Studies on human sex have made rather interesting discoveries themselves. We can assume everyone knows how to have sex, but science uncovered many more layers than just 'doing the do'. Emotional bonding was found to enhance sexual pleasure. Sharing housework between human partners had a similar effect. Another study found that being stoned enhanced sex. Another study discovered that if your feet get cold during sex(aka discomfort occurs), then women are less likely to orgasm. Just applying the findings of a couple of these studies is objectively beneficial for your sexual experience with humans. We don't have data on what would affect pleasure in nonhumans.
The issues is, we don't 'know'. You say 'wait two years' but it could very well be 3 or 4 years when it's best to start, for instance. You think enough, but what is known about this act in particular is sparse.
Brush it off? The issue is that self punishment resolves nothing. It's better to simply atone, if you're so disturbed by it. Look, we've caused harm thinking we were doing the safe thing many times before. The no-fat fad that swept the world comes to mind; parents avoiding giving their kids fatty food like it was the plague. The kids turned out alright for the most part, but it caused a bump in obesity. We agreed that the hysteria was kind of dumb and don't deny that it didn't help obesity rates when sugar and salt became the substitutes, but nobody's kids care at this point, assuming they bore their parents any malice for it in the first place. They fixed the issue, the world became a better place for it, and that was it. Sometimes we laugh and joke about how dumb it was, but that's it. Punishment and self loathing over it just makes the whole thing harder.
It's the pragmatic approach to forgive and forget sometimes.
I'm people and I know people that would disagree with you. They're non zoos too, by the by.
I said this before but, nitrile gloves don't protect researchers from bestiality charges. Researchers can actually begin looking into this stuff with it legal.
Nor are atheists, blacks, and Jews. The goal isn't to get every third world country and theocracy to accept zoos, though. A good chunk of Europe and the Americas would be more than sufficient.
But they can and do. Look at these stats on homosexuality acceptance. Scroll down to the approval by age chart. This shouldn't be too surprising, but the data indicates that younger generations are consistently becoming more sexually liberal, or at least more tolerant.
And that's changing. Gays were 'sexual deviants' and disorders were once all considered diseases because they strayed from normalcy. It's simply no longer the case in most instances. Humans are improving.
Legalize (With stipulations still) it and we'll know. Comparatively few will admit to doing it, even in an anonymous survey, until it's legal.
Bestialists will get stipulations to follow, same as zoos. Even if they're 'just in it for the sex' they'll still be honoring the law more closely now that there's no longer the "Well it doesn't matter what I do now since I'm already astray of the law" mentality. That, and bestialists needn't only care about the sex. It could be a couple that care about their dog very much, or someone that's not grossed out by the prospect and wants their pet to be able to experience that side of things. The issue with labels is, those kinds of circumstances get overlooked as a result.
Yeah, but I know. That's what I think.
I find 3-4 years to be abnormal. If an animal isn't sexually mature after being fully grown then I don't have anything to say.
I just can't forgive and forget rape.
I don't think any other human would forgive and forget that either, looking at how antis already treat us.
Self punishment does work for me though.
I remember when I hurt her once and then hurt myself right after that. It made me at least feel a little better, even though I cried for a few minutes.
Sharing pain or punishing myself makes me feel better.
I don't enjoy restaurants. I won't enjoy that food because she isn't there to enjoy it.
I won't protect myself from the rain and just accept being wet when I'm not home. I know my bitch is getting wet at that point.
I would never be able to be happy again.
I'd look at her every time and cry, I know it. If I live after doing such a thing I would be very depressed and probably only laugh ever again because of me going insane.
If you do something bad, you deserve the same thing back. Twice.
Especially if it's a first move or because of selfish reasons.
It really isn't just a ''I'll never do it again, I did bad. Lesson learned.''
But honestly, I don't think this is important to talk about.
My question was about what would really happen, not if people deserve punishment for their bad deeds or not.
You can't change my mind on this specific subject anyways as I know a lot of humans are too forgiving. I'm not going to take ''Let it slide.'' as an answer. Ever.
And I know people that would agree with me.
It doesn't make much sense for people to care about our rights.
They're not in our shoes, and if you care about us you must agree with our actions first. And how much people are against zoophilia again?
Good, it's only a waste of time to me.
Except gays are way more hated than atheists, black humans and jews.
If they hate atheists itfp then they hate gays too.
And these days people know better than to judge people by their skin color.
I have never seen hate for black humans in my life and have never really seen people hate me because I'm an atheist. It was only funny to them.
Yet gay is such a common insult I hear at least 3 times every day.
Non-ironic, 100% serious.
Still, there were enough laws against gays. They didn't exist for nothing.
But what my point was, if at least 10% of humanity is anti-gay we have no chance.
We are VERY different compared to gays.
There are a lot of examples where we are similar and have been treated similar, but we always got way worse treatment and disrespect.
The numbers still shock me. Like I said, even if a small group of people can't accept gays then our chances extremely small.
It makes sense for zoophilia to be more accepted because people are accepting more and more sexualities.
Yet laws are still being created against us these days.
And 30-30 made an excellent point once. It's not just how they see us zoos, but also animals.
Ahem. ''These cute little fluffy animals. Awww...''
Animals are treated like walking plushies, furry babies that don't have brains and can't decide things for themselves.
Changing?
I'd believe it if I saw it happen.
I see no change anywhere. I see zoophilia being pushed only back into the abyss where it came from. What some people call 'Hell.'
Answer: not a lot of people.
It won't profit that much people at all is what I mean.
And imo, it's not going to profit animals either. I don't really see bestiality as something that makes animals more happy. A few minutes of fun isn't going to improve anyone's lives.
Except I don't want animals to be used for sex.
Like training animals just to have sex and maybe even get money from it. You can never find that out.
Not even with hyper super mega ultimate sci-fi microchips that monitor stuff going on in the animal's bodies.
Then you'd think... well why then care about the laws if it doesn't do anything against that anyways?
If they are caught having sex with the animal, no punishment will be done. At that point you can just keep that sex slave and go on forever.
Not just an issue of being fully grown. Experience plays a role too; not necessarily sexual experience. That's a discussion in itself though.
Dogs are perceptive to this. If you bring yourself to a point of psychological ruin over something like that, you cause psychological harm to her too.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. That, and animals and human models have both found punishment ineffective.
That goes for anyone advocating for a minority that they arent a member of, if you only look at the immediate effects. Tolerance offers a net benefit, though.
Oh and it's not just a right for zoos and bestialists. It's for researchers and nonhuman animals too, at the risk of sounding like a broken record.
I'm not in your shoes. There are lots of things i dont agree with that I care about or am not against, too. Like republicans.
We have no stats for this.
Even if they discover a way to always give female dogs mind blowing, minutes long orgasms? :p
Depends on the interpretation. I've seen examples of exclusive prejudice. Some are more sexually accepting, others more religiously accepting.
They're out there. My mother's a bit prejudiced, herself. It's diet racism now, if you will.
How does that follow? It's decreasing every year, so we're bound to pass that threshold, likely within the next decade unless opinions suddenly stop changing over time.
And other times where they were equally accepted.
It does but we should also remember that the ones that did good job of advocating got their due first. Gay and lesbian activism was spectacularly effective.
That's also changing and was never entirely true in the first place. The science community especially disagrees with that outlook which may be why we're more accepting about this than others.
So did gays, for decades. The support they garnered snowballed though.
The same could be said about the gay population. Not saying there were less gays, but there was more repression of those thoughts, and just as much concealment.
That's one way to marginalize sex. There are lot of endocrine phenomena going on that are homogenous between mammals. It's possible that sex would allow dogs to handle stress better, and would help prevent prostate cancer in males, to list a couple benefits.
And we're forgetting that legislators wanting to regulate this may demand that pet owners make regular visits to the vet. Net benefit there.
We've got time to develop the technology to change that. Legality is something that will be decades in the making.
Or nanomachines that can tap into their nervous system and simulate stimuli that they recieve.
Real talk, the microchips aren't even scifi because we already have them. Getting readings on hormones isn't hard. Hormone tracking microchips would be able to detect when intercourse is taking place if they are sexually aroused or stimulated. Excessive such fluctuations can be grounds for further investigation.
Assuming the absence of the above... Neighbors. Maybe random checks. Not really worth the risk imo.
In the absence of technology, stipulations. Look, people can drink at home. Its legal either way in wet counties. Dry counties see 3.6 times as many alcohol related deaths, though. There's nobody to enforce against you when you're plastered at home when its legal, yet somehow more people drink recklessly where it's forbidden. It's not a coincidence.
I don't think lack of experience can lead to rape.
My bitch shows no signs of that at all.
She shows no stress or walks up to me when I'm sad or crying.
So that isn't a problem, really.
That wasn't supposed to be taken 100% seriously.
More like, do the majority of humans hate zoophilia?
If you're going to need stats for that then you're asking for too much.
Stats for an exact number or 'about-how-many' number would make sense but we both know that the majority is against us.
You got me there, but that sounds extremely impossible.
Oh wait, every good thing sounds impossible.
Why don't I already help this research by ehh... researching?
Tho, can't imagine that their orgasms could be longer.
A bitch after or during orgasm is like those dogs with hyperactivity except she's moany and itlasts for one min.
How Fuzzy puts it, we're animal fuckers.
It's not something that will be considered normal.
Also, this probably means this happens after my death. WOO! GREAT! PARTAAAY!
Yeah I doubt that.
Maybe in medieval times but that's long ago.
Really went well huh?
Maybe because they had a lot of people on their side and wasn't such a small group.
I still don't know if I'm supposed to be happy that the zoo comm is so small.
H-Hold on... SCIENCE?
Nah nah nah, the Bible proves science wrong!
Fuck your science! Science is sin!
What I'm saying is that some people don't care about sayenz.
Yeah, but zoos already have less power to begin with.
I lied, I see change happening. Nice new US laws you got there.
And like always: Idc what happens to zoo after my death.
Except there's way more gays than zoos, that's for sure.
That's a very small profit for a very small amount of animals.
And what has that last sentence to do with anything? As if I want that.
Technology... Technology...
What's it now, the super spy alien spaceshipchip?
Really, no one is going to put that much effort in any of this.
I doubt a zoo even would. No matter how good my intentions are I wouldn't waste my time with that nonsense.
No one is going to waste time on this.
Nobody cares about zoo enough to do anything.
People would already have trouble with tracking abuse, so spending time on zoo is probably the last thing they'll ever do.
The average person can't see if an animal is trained for sex or not.
Even I can't.
I don't think that compares to the example I made.
Same goes for everything else.
Drinking will bring self-harm if not done correctly...
And people shpuld be allowed to do whatever they want like drugs and alcohol.
Their choice... really.
As you might have seen, I didn't really get ya. shrug
It may influence decisionmaking however.
]You may find this literature review to be enlightening. ](http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/02/15/rsbl.2011.0083.article-info)
Even 4% of the world being pro zoo is still 300 million people. That's massive. The issue though, is that there are countries we don't have much access to. Massive ones, at that. We in our current condition can't access information from China for instance. But their existing folklore might be influencing them in our favor.
We'd need a reasonably sized sample so your exploratory efforts alone may not help too much.
Honestly, its stranger in your eyes than in 'normies'. I've never heard it get called strange. Interesting, yeah. Not strange. Of course it bears repeating that I have scientist friends, but still. You aren't humping furniture. You're not into dead bodies. You're into living, aware partners. That reasoning is out there.
And honestly, what does it matter if it's considered normal? The world is dull enough without stifling everything that isn't normal.
Thats what happened with gays. The mistreatment turned to the worst, and that mistreatment was used as leverage on the campaign trail.
Irrelevant, tbh.
So you dont want pet owners to be held accountable for visiting the vet to ensure they recieve preventive medicine and regular checkups to make sure that they're healthy and happy?
One of my cats actually died because of this attitude, of something awful. Imagine a waking up to your dog turning yellow due to liver failure, with a few days left to live; her final days assured to be ones of extreme illness, worse than the ill feelings that would have appeared and persisted months prior. They stop eating. They slow down. Eventually they can't stand. Their eyes turn a sickly gold too, everything being claimed by the poison pooling inside of them. It can be treated, but only months before symptoms become visible.
Youd see this adapted from technology built for human applications. We want to get into the 'animal mind', don't forget. Researchers want this for reasons beyond studying sex, but the domestic applications are palpable nonetheless. I'm not the only one among my peers that shares this sentiment.
Random checks by people trained to detect it, then.
The point is that they stop caring about the harm they do more often when it's taboo in entirety.
"Who cares if I hurt this animal while having sex with them? It's illegal to have sex with them anyway!"
This is the attitude that a strict law can promote, as evidenced by the inflated alcohol related deaths in dry counties.
I guess this is another flaw of the character that I am.
I will continue to hurt myself if I hurt my bitch. Not always, because I will mostly apologize and make up to her in different ways.
It was a joke on how I'd help find out how to give them extra sexual pleasure. Don't think this needs explainin'.
Which makes it worse for the antis. And they don't seem to agree on the 'aware' thing.
Though, I get your point but we are still considered very strange.
We're black sheep, really. A lot of people are hated or avoided just because they're weird.
I haven't seen a single anti not call zoophilia or at least not hint at that zoo is something very strange.
What I said above.
The chances are small that people will support or even accept us if we are seen as aliens.
I don't need to be seen as a freak either.
I have never really talked about this specific subject.
My bitch hasn't been to the vet for a very long time.
I think I have missed something serious here.
I don't do regular checkups for her. But have thought about it.
Though, I would have no idea when to. Yeah, of course, if there's something wrong or strange going on but I mean as a schedule. Probably costs a fortune, too.
When learning about canids or talking about them I have never come across such things.
And damn, I bet this shit will be used against me some day so I'll say this: Everyone makes mistakes, everyone misses one obvious thing at some point.
Ever the best of experts in sports have missed a viable strategy that everyone used. It doesn't mean that they should be called bad or considered dumb or unreliable.
This is too much to ask, again.
Nobody will put that much effort just to see if everyone's having the right fuck with their animals.
Again, not much people have sex with animals.
I ignored some of the other things because I kind of want to end this.
Again, I will stop replying but I'll read your next reply.
By the way, you only gave me a very small chance of hope, but you haven't really convinced me.
The idea of zoos being accepted seems one of the most impossible things I could ever think of.
I don't know, it's really poppycock to me.
You'll still get my support for things like this though, but my biggest problem is harmful zoosex and how to track it.
Your solutions look way too hard imo.
One of my favorite passtimes is taking things seriously and seeing how they react.
Fair enough, but well, that's changing too. Globalization has made xenophobia that much rarer, and the internal dichotomy between human animal and nonhuman animal is shrinking as well.
On avg the appointment and physical exam will cost 50$. Boosters are 20$-25$. Heartworm test is 50$. Fecal testing costs 30$-40$ and is probably among the most important. Older dogs will need geriatric screening which ranges from 85$ to 110$. The rest like dental cleaning which can cost up to 400$ can be done by you if you know what you're doing. But for your dog, probably less than 200$ a visit. Not a bad price if I do say so myself. Pet meds are where you'll start hurting.
This is the kind of stuff I was talking about when I said you shouldn't beat yourself up over unknowingly causing harm. It's a mistake, it's missing something. That's all. Long as we improve from here.
Hey, if there's enough ruckus, the religious knights in the government will make sure it happens.
I'm a geneticist currently in his bed, on his phone. Fair to say that my solutions right now aren't the most thought out, but the technological approach is pretty cut and dry at this point, still. Hormone trackers are pretty easy to make. When it becomes legal, you'll probably be looking at a large, perhaps disproportionate regulatory effort; ideally at a federal level, but possibly at a state level. The random checks wouldn't be just for sexual abuse, but abuse and neglect in general.
Also, reducing the odds of being imprisoned for several years and having your life ruined by a sexually-related felony in which you were in fact doing nothing at all wrong or questionable.
Oddly enough bringing attention to us is vary likely to increase the odds of being persecuted.
Are we talking about importance, or are we talking about method? Something can be important but still with an unknown approach to that end.
But speaking about method for a moment, the alternative proposal is, what... do nothing and hope people forget about the topic? I'm trying to remember whether that strategy ever worked, but I guess if it did, I would've forgotten entirely about it!
Either way, the topic will have attention as laws get passed in more and more places, and people get prosecuted with more and more of those laws. So should it be brought up deliberately with an educated, reasonable, and defensible voice, or only be brought up with the negative voice given to it by criminals, overzealous fanatics, and vocal detractors, as has been happening over the last several years?
So, you aspire legalisation to reduce the risks of being imprisoned (which is very unlikely to happen anytime soon), but when I say people should stay away from filming themselves, fencehopping and other behaviour that can and will lead to exposure, that´s irrational and prudish?
What is impossible to reach is aspired and what would only take the adoption of a few basic rules and lies within everyone´s own hands is dismissed although sticking to these rules would decrease the risks of being exposed to an almost zero level. Interesting. Simply not talking about it, not handing out evidence yourself in form of videos et al. will be the best working precautions that will keep lots of folks out of jail...and we don´t even have to tackle society and the jurisdictual apparatus. I´m still waiting for that one story with the one real zoo who has been condemned to jail time without the involvement of animal porn sharing/publication, without a fencehopper background, without the unhealthy urge to tell everybody what he´s into....been scanning almost all cases of caught "zoos" , but haven´t found one single case that would fit into what I described. Fighting for "zoo rights" at this moment is ridiculously delusional...you´re not fighting for "zoo rights", you´re fighting for all those who cannot contain themselves enough to keep their sexual kinks out of the public.
Can you remind me of where I ever said that?
And yes, I'm aware of your position that "since it hasn't happened before in documentation you read, it therefore will never happen to you, and by extension to anyone else meeting your standards." Unfortunately, logic, common sense, and the law all disagree with that interpretation, but of course I hope it continues to work for you. It just is not airtight enough to work for an arbitrarily large number of other people, in other parts of the world, I think.
It´s airtight enough for lots of zoophiles who are aware of their orientation´s controversial nature, who are aware of the huge importance of privacy...for several decades now.
It´s still my belief that these laws aren´t meant to be what you and other zoos try to make them. The wording alone, "anti zoo" laws is inaccurate and tries to cover up what these laws really are about...not eradicating every single "zoophile" but keeping the animal fucking out of society.
You can´t evade my question: where has one single zoophile who was NOT handing out info him-/herself been arrested? Where are the masses of convicts who had nothing to do with fencehopping and animal porn? In the real world, no one can and will ever interfere with your zoophilia if, IF you keep a low profile. That´s a fact. My solution? Keep a friggin´ low profile, for god´s sake, goddammit! This has worked for decades and is almost universally applicable to every single fuckin´ zoo around the world.
If we analyse the situation logically, we have a massive wall of rejction and laws to overcome when striving for "legality" of "zoophilia" (we all know it really is about legalising any bestiality act, isn´t it?). We can safely assume that the struggle against the entire world (society, laws) will fail. Isn´t it the most logical and healthy approach to avoid unwinnable wars when you´re outnumbered and outgunned by 1 : 1 mil? The zoo scene could thrive and grow the best when everybody kept silent about his/her orientation; the problems started when people became infected with the illusion that zoophilia is "the new gay" and began with their online "campaigns" and "trying to teach the public about zoophilia". That´s were we fell from grace, man. "We" wanted it to be known by many and now we complain that many don´t want it in their lives. You can twist and turn, asking me to support things I cannot support because I see reality as it is and not as I wish it to be. What else than "just legalise it", making abuse of animals even harder to prosecute as it is already, do you have to offer to solve the problem? It should be very clear by now that society won´t do fucks regarding your illusionary demand, there will never be a "total freedom" or "rights" to fuck animals. So, we have to work with what is there to work....silence, clandestinity, shutting the fuck up in inappropriate circumstances. It would take only a few thousand zoophiles to realise the situation as it is to "solve" the problem, but you really insist on the world needs to change, almost all of the 7,5 billion people living on this planet have to change for a few thousand individuals. As long as you cannot come up with a real solution besides the "legalise it" crap that would open every door for the bestialists and animal pornographers, you simply haven´t enough stance to criticise me. Where´s your solution that finds a compromise between zoophile interests and society´s duty to protect animals from unnecessary harm?
Watching and protecting one´s own privacy by NOT giving out incriminating evidence is THE most airtight advice a zoophile can give another...for decades now.
The laws are quite clear on their goal of preventing any sexual contact with animals, public or private, abusive or not. So sure, if and only if permanent celibacy is part of your definition of zoophilia, your conclusion is correct.
Nobody disputes that keeping a low profile will reduce your chances of being caught doing something illegal. That is not relevant to the point that it should not be illegal in the first place... nor the point that direct, targeted laws invite prosecution, so it is especially important that direct, targeted laws are supported by valid, irrefutable data, rather than emotion.
Same with your question about cases. I do remember several cases from the 1960s and 70s where people were walked in on by parents, neighbors, etc., and I will try to dig those up, but even so an analysis of the past is irrelevant. Even assuming we avoid the slippery slope argument of "people could have been more careful" (anyone who's caught is obviously not quite careful enough) it's still irrelevant because it does not take into account newer laws, present/future developments such as doxxing, caches of stored information to be analyzed later, etc.
So sure, be careful as a way to avoid unjust prosecution, but that doesn't change it being unjust.