There is now an anti-zoo bill in Nevada:
http://legiscan.com/NV/bill/AB391/2017
This is the 5th bill this year in the United States that seeks to ban sex with animals in a state. There are currently 4 other states (Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Vermont) that all have anti-zoo bills. Something must've happened "behind the scenes" to result in all these bills (if not, then it's awfully coincidental that all these bills happened to be written at the same time).
This is a disaster for zoos living in the U.S.
There is also this article about the bill in Vermont:
vtdigger.org/2017/03/12/bills-aim-protect-animals-cruelty/
Quote from that article:
"For instance, sexual abuse against animals is legal in Vermont, Rosengard said, as is the case in Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming."
"'As with other forms of animal abuse, bestiality overlaps significantly with violence perpetrated against humans, including domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse', Rosengard said. 'Enabling the law to effectively intervene on behalf of the animal victims of bestiality thus also benefits human victims of violence.'"
Once again, the lie that sex with animals is associated with violence is being spread. The premise that sex with animals is related to these other things is a fallacy. Also, negative terminology is being used to describe sex with animals, namely the label of "sexual abuse" being wrongfully applied to all sex with animals. The quote also assumes that an animal who has sex with a human is a "victim" in all cases, which isn't true.
They're passing bills to prevent the people who starred in or were captured in video footage from having legal protection from the pornographers. It's the same tactic used against illegal immigrants. Employers make the immigrants work, then refuse to reimburse them because the illegal immigrants don't have the legal power to claim the employers wrongdoing. The employers hold the immigrants hostage and use their illegal status as blackmail, keeping them as slaves by threat of "outing" them for deportation.
The same thing happens to zoos. People find out that a zoo has sex with animals, then they blackmail and extort the zoophile for money or sexual services. If the zoophile tries to obtain help from anybody, they get labeled as being mentally ill and drugged or arrested and lose their animals as a consequence of giving away the secrets of the blackmail and slavery practices. These laws are enabling a new era of slavery and abuse of human beings. It's being used as an excuse to force people to work for nothing.
On another note. The same people who are passing the bills are using zoophilia to fraudulently "predict" violence caused by zoophiles. They are causing a self fulfilling prophecy of violence from zoophiles, whereby those same people who support these bills are luring zoophiles into abusive relationships for the sole purpose of enabling or "provoking" domestic violence, child abuse and other crimes from the zoophile. They are using antagonism to create reasons to claim legitimacy of their agenda.
These people who support the laws are deliberately acting as enablers and bad role models to influence alternative crime waves perpetrated by the zoophiles for the purpose of linking zoophilia to other crimes. They are influencing zoophiles to commit crimes for the "we told you so" factor. They are pushing for the power to accuse zoophiles of crimes they never committed. They are using the fraudulent "links" to frame people who cannot defend themselves from prosecution.
The people supporting the laws are causing the problem, and offering laws to fix the problem that never existed. The people who support these laws are hurting everybody and getting people killed just so they can have an excuse to legally harm zoophiles without opposition.
Supporters of these laws are antagonists, and they are posing as zoophiles to deceive other zoophiles and the public.
Do you have any specific evidence that this actually happens, or is this pure speculation?
"PLEASE DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS"
[removed]
Intentionally misinterpreting a statement detracts from the discussion, as does making derogatory job recommendations.
The discussion was already detracted. Am I not delusional or sick enough for it to be cool?
What's wrong with working at Guantanamo? If they want to step all over infamous people and get paid for it then it's probably a good recommendation. I'm just trying to help them succeed in their goals and dreams. I should make those choices for them, you know, because I dont understand, agree with or care about anything else they might be interested in.
I'm so good at what I do for other people and animals.
There is always room for more detraction, and it's my job to prevent it.
"It sounds like you enjoy humiliating people, not feeding them, and watching them struggle to survive. Maybe you could also become a sex-trafficking friendly politician."
That accompanied your Guantanamo job recommendation, if you'll recall. Those recommendations you made are derogatory and you know it just as well as I.
If the laws banning sex with animals are not derogatory... you know, "putting people in prison for sex"... then I'm pretty sure that specific job recommendation of "Guantanamo Guard" is equivalent to handing out free money and golden trophies. It fits.
That's not content on here, though. What I care about is what you and other users post, and what you said was derogatory.
Some people's dreams are to become torturers and man-killers. They enjoy cutting the genitals out of people an animals, and using people's sexual practices as practical jokes. They can only make those dreams happen if they claim to be doing it for "good reasons." They can't just come out and say that they're sexually attracted to torture, murder, and unnecessary surgical operations. They need an excuse, like "Saving The Animals." If they didn't have an excuse like "People who have sex with animals are rapists" then torture fetishists would have nobody to torture, or ban, because everybody would be good. Oh noes!!
Definitely not derogatory if somebody likes it. You're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. Trust me, I know what they want and I know what they need. More and larger cages to put people in, more drugs and poisons, and more laws against sex with animal, "this and that" to make it all happen. It will be fun.
The content of concern is derogatory in nature the instant you say it without citable evidence.
That's it, and it's completely independent of your own reasoning and the loopholes you try to invent. Enforcement is done at moderator discretion, and our discretion isn't very wavering right now.
Actually I do
http://www.humantraffickingsearch.net/wp1/the-connection-between-sex-trafficking-and-pornography
It is possible for a young women or girl to walk away from sex trafficking and start a new life, but sexually illicit photos or films will follow her forever—regardless of whether she was underage when they were taken or not. Once a film or image with the girl’s face is uploaded onto the Internet, it is there forever. Traffickers know this and use it as a method of control and blackmail, letting the girls know that now they are on the Internet they can never escape the life.
Would you like me to be any more specific? Believe me, I can provide specific cases, however I don't get paid to investigate and I do it at my leisure.
Sex traffickers have the money, power, deceptive skills and friends inside the legal system to change the laws regarding sex with animals into a tool for exploitation. Once they know you have sex with animals, they're going to threaten you to imprisonment, deny your animal ownership so you MUST rely on them, and follow you around for the rest of your life.
Now...What if the people being blackmailed didn't consent to having their image taken in the first place? Like a trespasser placing a secret camera inside a zoophiles home or barn? Sounds like the law wouldnt protect them because "All" sex with animals is illegal and "everybody" is at risk of being blackmailed and abused.
If people really want to "earn" insight, they should go out and look for the information themselves instead of asking me to do it all the time. Lazy people are stupid people. No offense to you duskwuff, because you haven't been gaslighting my informational posts.
Sometimes I feel as if people are denying my information because they're getting paid to work as "Cover-Up Artists."
So here's the thing. In over 15 years, I have never heard of anything happening which was even remotely similar to the scenario you're describing, either in our community or in any other kink community.
People do not go out searching for other people committing illegal sex acts, then (illegally!) procuring evidence of those acts and using it to blackmail people. This is not a thing. It doesn't even make sense. When people observe an illegal act taking place, they go and report it to the police. I've seen a number of instances of this happening to zoos, and none of the (frankly ridiculous) situation you've described.
If you believe you have evidence to the contrary, I challenge you to present it.
15 years? Boy, it's heartbreaking that you wasted so much time. Have you ever tried Googling the information?
http://www.omaha.com/news/legislature/as-in-kintner-case-sex-is-often-the-bait-in/article_d68c39bb-5e65-5c61-bc13-fb7fdd16848f.html
If blackmail can be accomplished with human beings as bait then blackmail can also be accomplished by using animals as bait.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sextortion-rise-suicides-blackmailing-sexual-images-sharing-social-media-a7446776.html%3Famp
This IS a thing. Have you ever considered, maybe it doesn't make sense to you because you're not educated properly or enough in crime prevention to understand the concepts? Either you're an at-risk individual (easy prey), or a manipulative predator in disguise "playing brain-dead."
The authorities are already aware of human based sextortion since criminals are already being caught for it. That's why the extortionists are turning to criminalize the act of sex with animals to make up for the ineffective human-based methods. The term "criminalize" referring to recruitment into criminal organizations. It is no surprise why some people here and "false zoos" would make the effort to hide and reject these "unknown" methods. They don't want me giving away their extortion trade secrets to the public.
Blackmail isn't done only for the extortion of money. It can also be used for the purpose of forceful and threatening religious or political conversions, to recruit individuals into these extremist terrorist organizations by the use of a person's sexual attraction to animals as leverage.
Remember this... sex with animals is illegal in states where zoophiles are murdering and harming people in the name of criminal organizations, because the laws allowed for criminals to benefit from it.
Apples and oranges, dude. The "examples" you're citing are of a completely different situation, where the victim is aware of, and participating in, the creation of the images. (And the images aren't illegal, just embarrassing.)
Your claims are just getting more wild and strange with each iteration. I won't dignify your concept of zoo-blackmail-terrorist-recruiters with a further response; that's just utter silliness.
Did you even think before typing that? "Theft by deception" is not the same as "willingness." That's like comparing apples to a steak.
Youre trying to tell me that "If the victim wasn't aware of, and not participating in, the creation of images" (where the images are illegal, and embarrassing) the victims would deserve the blackmail as opposed to if they willingly gave the photos to the extortionists?
Basically you're claiming that blackmail (a fruit) is perfectly fine, as long as the footage wasn't willingly given (an apple), to the extortionists for the purpose of blackmail, as opposed to if it was not given but stolen (an orange) for the purpose of blackmail.
They're both fruits you fruit. They're both forms of blackmail, and criminals eat both apples and oranges. Bottom line, the law is enabling criminals to blackmail people because the law is criminal, made by and supported by criminals. If you do not care then you might be using apples and oranges to your advantage, as a criminal, and not covering up the peels very well at all. You know, there's a very good chance somebody is going to throw peaches into the fruit salad too, right?
Consequently, your statement claims that it's perfectly ok to steal people's identity and personal information for use as blackmail, but it's wrong to use information that was given away. Experience much? 15 years of blackmailing people maybe.
I wont dignify your statements... That's utter sillyness
Well duh! You probably wouldn't dignify much of anything if you don't have the dignity to spare in the first place.
Bestiality bill*
An anti-zoo bill would prosecute for thoughtcrime.
EDIT: There's also no conspiracy going on. 5 bills appeared in short order because news has a way of spreading, and animal rights groups and the like are campaigning against bestiality.
A bill prohibiting sexual activity with animals may act as a proxy thoughtcrime law -- that is, although thought relating to zoo is not itself illegal, laws prohibiting zoosex may have a chilling effect on speech relating to it.
We talk about sex with nonhuman animals all the time.
So does /r/bestiality. They just don't want nonhuman animals being raped. Its literally meant to protect from animal abuse, and bestiality is seen as an extension of that.
[deleted]
The same legislators also passed anti rape bills though.
They're not protecting anything. Rape is becoming such a broad spectrum of actions that they're applying it to anything they want whenever they want. Everything can't be rape.
Everything isnt rape. There's rape and sexual assault.
And yeah they kind of are protecting nonhuman animals. They're trying to, at least.
[removed]
Sexual assault legislature overview
Also repossessing nonhuman animals costs the government money, in a time where government spending is constantly under fire.
Well yeah? It's also well known that people spend lots of money on hired killers to ruin people's lives for offending them. If people having sex with animals offends their ego, you don't think they're going to hurt people for making them look bad? That's no different than white supremacists beating up or murdering a white guy for hanging around with blacks.
The government isn't paying for the repossession, the psychopath supporters of these laws do. People and politicians have their own personal funds aside from the government treasury.
They're not doing it to protect the animals. They're doing it for their ego.
Prosecuting people for sexual crimes isn't something that people wear as a badge of honor.
They do it for money. Money is their badge of honor and money is their ego.
Prosecution is also a sadistic fetish. It ties in to humiliation/rejection S&M, because some people are sexually aroused by rejecting people, watching people cry and struggle. It's a power-dominance fetish.
They're doing it for the sex-traffickers.
It's more lucrativee to work with special interest groups for money, and animal rights groups don't do bribery.
Nobody has a prosecution fetish and even then legislators would be better off literally making anything else illegal if all they case about is getting people behind bars.
Do you even know what a transvestite is? Judging by how you used the word, my guess is a big, fat, NO.
Transvestites do NOT take hormones TYVM.
Transexuals take hormones.
Transgenders take hormones.
Transvestites are men (who identify AS MEN), who get pleasure from playing a role as a woman. They do not identify as women. They do not want to change their bodies permanently to a woman's body. They do not require therapy, surgery, or hormones to not feel like they want to die from feeling uncomfortable with the body and/or gender they were assigned at birth.
But what would I know? I'm just a silly special snowflake transgender.
[removed]
Read up on causes of transsexuality.
Also sexual blackmailing is using pictures of people in the act. That's independent of their gender or biological sex.
It's fine to not like trans people.
It's not fine to say they're using nonhuman animal genitals as aphrodisiacs.
Literally only the first paragraph isn't a direct violation of the rules but even that is pretty shitty.
That's ok, I wouldn't not do it if it was against the rules anyways. Rules against offending people are for Anti-zoos and animal sex persecutors. Weak stomachs, would-be murderers with short fuses for offense. Better off being blind for everyone's safety if they can't look away and don't like what they see.
No, it's because it's toxic and it ends up censoring zoos and non zoos that aren't in a position to handle that kind of stuff in literally every thread.
And it is against the rules.
Also I corrected your double negative in the quote.
Also, this will be treated as a second strike against our agreement.
It wouldn't be toxic if they didn't eat it. They're making that choice.
Look dude... rules created by people with mental problems are the reason why sex with animals is illegal. Theyre offended by it but they can't help themselves but to look at what other people are doing (eavesdroppers, peeping-toms, camera and audio equipment operators), so they create rules to stop people like myself from having sex because they didn't have the capacity to look away. I'm not in the position to handle the censorship and ban on sex with animals in literally every state. Its not the country's responsibility to take care of people who want nothing more than to make all aspects of everyone else's life disappear.
Again, I never made an agreement with you. I never made an agreement to accept the ban on sex with animals. It's all in your head and the heads of people who can't get their heads out of other people's heads.
I'm just trying to give you and all the other offended people's intellectual property back.
BTW...The double negative was put there for a reason, just like a humans and animals sexual organs and drives. Don't remove it just because you don't agree with it.
The issue is, it's airborne. Everyone nearby either has to hold their breath or they have to inhale it.
That's not the issue. The issue is you not following the rules I'm tasked with enforcing.
I have documented evidence to the contrary, which I already cited once today. I also have evidence of previous cooperation and acknowledgement of the agreement.
I don't personally get offended by what you say; I simply respond to it as a courtesy. Unfortunately, your belief here is not shared by others in the community, which is made worse by the fact that you violate our rules in doing so.
It's a grammar mistake in standard English, and it's better to remove double negatives because doing so makes a sentence more cogent without changing the meaning.
Oregon already has an antizoo law that does affect what you can and can't talk about. It's illegal to do or say anything that might encourage people to take part in sex with animals, in other words, you can go to jail for giving instructions on how to have sex with a dog...even if said instructions are strictly for description purposes only. You also can't tell your therapist about your sexual activity with animals, or you'll be prosecuted. And who knows how else they can twist that law in order to prosecute? They might even say protesting for zoo rights, or even speaking positively about sex with animals is encouragement, I mean they already use sodomy and crimes against nature laws to prosecute people who have sex with animals in places where no specific bestiality law exists, I don't see why the legal system couldn't twist those laws in their favor as well. I'm sure they will make it illegal for us to even congregate at some point. I mean, if they can attack free speech legally, why not other things we are supposedly "free" to do?
Free to die on a cross. They want people to, and will force people to sacrifice everything about themselves if not themselves entirely. Wouldn't be surprised if those people who support and act on behalf of the laws are cannibals. Won't tolerate anything, unless everybody must throw themselves like slabs of meat into the pigs grinder.
New Hampshire also has a new law which went into effect at the beginning of 2017 which bans free speech associated with sex with animals. Amazingly, no one, not even the ACLU, protested that aspect of the law. These bans on free speech are a characteristic of newly made laws; old laws don't ban free speech (they only ban the sexual aspect).
They don't want people to propose the vast amount of evidence supporting sex with animals. The ratio is about 3 against : 500 for. Of course these are made up numbers but the people against sex with animals have a long way to go before they catch up.
The people who persecute against sex with animals are severely outnumbered by facts, therefore censoring free speech of the facts is the only chance for the survival of their lies.
Not trying to prove my point from my previous arguments. But doesn't this make you lose hope for zoophilia being accepted?
Yes, this is an anti-best bill but look at the reasons it came to existence. Do you think people will ever be educated with such thoughts?
If they can't even accept bestiality, then they can't accept zoophilia as it is a part of zoophilia.
There probably aren't anti-zoo bills because they don't know we exist...
Not really, no. Time has a way of teaching you that bad things get worse before they get better.
Like climate change.
The reasons it came to be preempted the human element of the issue, I assure you. Nobody'll change their minds if there's no one to do it, though. Not saying to go preach on the streets, but using what evidence we already have when discussing this with others hasn't really led us astray... cept for you.
I can accept pedophiles just fine as long as they don't sexually assault any kids and are firm in their restraint. Lots of people are of a similar mind.
Bills based on ones' sexuality or psychology are rare and require extrenuating circumstances. You don't have to worry, nobody's going to legislate against it.
Except zoos do act on their urges most of the time. If they don't, it's probably because they couldn't but they'd either fencehop or do it if they had the chance.
Pedos can't have consensual non-harmful sex with children or even have a proper relationship.
And when we're fighting for our rights we're also fighting for bestiality.
We've got an issue of availability in this statement. Most observable zoos act on their urges... in the context of a community for zoos. Even though battlecrops survey was limited to such people, there are none too insignificant rates of attraction to... humans. Presumably, the exclusives and more extreme zoos would bite the bullet and join communities for it, so we should have the more extreme data, and I believe we do. We still only have about 75% of people in this extreme group that have 'done it', as it were. If it were 85% or higher, then I'd be more assenting about this stance.
Paraphilias have larger membership than we know, and lower participation than you'd expect, in general. Alot of the time it's repressed.
They're still not fighting you, though, no matter what you're fighting for. That's the core of my initial comment. I know you disagree with this, but it's still an issue of animal rights too, and should really be framed as such in a legislative sense as well. Nonhuman animals should have the majority of the executive power regarding this when it comes to a willing human.
Sure, that may be but what I mean is that if you accept us, you must also accept us having sexual contact with animals.
If people are going to accept zoos who don't have sexual contact it's definitely an improvement, but there's enough people who don't have anything against these zoos so I actually couldn't care less.
It's just a part of zoophilia, really.
I do believe they're fighting me, though. Yeah, not that personal but rather us.
Because as I said, bestiality is a part of zoophilia.
Yeah, it wouldn't be surprising that they would be more accepted. They might make for good models on the issue, public perception wise.
If you're not fighting for the decriminalization of sex with animals then you are fighting for the sex-traffickers.
As long as people criminalize and stigmatize the sex, the sex traffickers can use it as blackmail when paired with pornography.
http://www.humantraffickingsearch.net/wp1/the-connection-between-sex-trafficking-and-pornography
I can never get behind that logic.
How is this related to violence?
Same logic, any other sex would also be related to violence.
I still am surprised that after all this time antis really are the dumbest people to exist.
Some people really don't deserve power...
As an amusing aside, Nevada is one of the states in which child porn is legal. Has been throughout the western US since 2011.
It's a cartel war.
Incidentally, some of the other states you mention step directly on cartels which I consider mostly friendly. I might have to get out a map, and do a little looking at this.
You are correct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn
HelperBot v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message ^/u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 48050
A quick google search failed to confirm this, and actually offered me many lawyering services for a potential trial rather than evidence it was legal. I'm gonna call BS on this one.
Awesome.
Step one is to replace "Nevada" with "9th Circuit," since it's at the federal, not state level.
Controlling precedent are Flyer (2011) and Kuchinski (2006) - "deleted and cache images don't count," basically. This may be a long game of "default presumption of distribution," but in any case, if you click the little "x" in the corner, you're good. :) Stream it, browse it, just don't save it.
This could end up combining to "legal, unless there is a dog in it" in the future. I'd laugh my fool ass off, but I wouldn't reccomend it, or find it just or humane.
That still does not suggest blanket legality as was implied in the least.
"Zoosex": any sexual activity that includes animals. Zoosex is a term referring to any sexual activity involving an animal and applies to any form; harmless, unintentionally harmful and intentionally harmful as well. "Zoosadists" also have "zoosex" when they torture and kill animals for their sexual gratification. Congratulations, Zqwm7, you just teamed up with the "zoosadists" and declared their provable violence a lie. Bravo!
I sometimes really wonder what the story behind this is.
You really have a habit of claiming 'this person is that person.'
If you were smart you would understand the concept of justice, and how regular sex with animals should be separated from sadistic sex with animals in the laws.
You don't think a sadistic or corrupt judge and jury will let the sadists get away with torturing animals, while prosecuting harmless people to the full extent of the law?
The law can be a sadistic fetish just like prosecuting people can be a sadistic fetish. The people who use it enjoy the "power play", humiliation and watching people cry. They enjoy restraining people and locking them in dungeons. They are aroused by hearing people whine and scream.
The law can't tell the difference between harming an animal or not, because one way or another it enables both innocent and guilty people to be captured, so the sadists can get their sexual fix by persecuting anybody.
Bravo! You know nothing about American law. Justice doesn't work when it's set up to provide injustice. Since you are German, I thought you would understand the concept of "Dungeon Fetishes." Maybe you do and that's why you're not opposed to letting this happen?
This country is turning into Hostel part 1, 2, and 3.
50 Shades of S&M in the legal system.
Etc.
Well SHIT! I was actually hoping to move there, specifically because I think Nevada would be one of the last states to make it illegal...but now this. My dreams are always crumbling before me, always :<
I feel the same way. One sets a goal of moving to a state because it's legal there, but then one's plans crumble because of a new bill/law.
It looks like Wyoming will probably be the last state to make it illegal. I'm hoping Wyoming stays legal, but with all these new bills being created, it makes me think the anti-zoos will try to ban it there at some point.