This is a paper which debunks the myth (being perpetuated by anti-zoos) that sex with animals leads to "violence":
http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/42/4/421.full.pdf
I don't agree with some aspects of this paper, but they are more neutral than most who discuss it. They also say this:
Third, and perhaps most important, we disagree with Holoyda and Newman’s argument that creating new laws to arrest more people with zoophilia may “increase our limited knowledge regarding the risk that zoophilic offenders pose to other humans” (Ref. 1, p 419). We argue that criminalization of behavior is a poor way to get research participants. In fact, increased criminalization is likely to have the effect of driving these individuals further underground rather than destigmatizing zoophilia to the point where definitive studies can be conducted and appropriate treatment can be offered.
This isn't a study, if anyone is wondering. Whether this debunks anything is dubious at best, and it unfortunately comes from a mental health center with hit or miss doctors. Sorry.
It's a review of a paper; the authors say that the anti-zoo authors of the paper they were reviewing used a bad sample selection and therefore their conclusion that sex with animals should be criminalized because zoos are a "higher risk" to be violent to the general population is a flawed one. This flawed conclusion was criticized in the following:
Antis making up extra shit again...
how does zoos having sex with animals increase the chances of sexually abusing humans?
Excuse me, but I'd never fuck a human in the first place...
Even with a gun pointed to my head it would probably one of the last species I'd touch.
I'm glad there's at least some more neutral people around, though.
They had enough to contest their paper, but not the idea they were perpetuating. That's the point. If you think they refuted the paper, say that. They didn't refute an entire stigma, though. They said themselves that the data they have right now isn't the best, abs tha can cause a bias in samples in either direction.
"Isn't the best"
The data is nowhere near being good enough to be better.
They're trying to predict the future by following a "buy one get one free" scenario of psychiatric disorders? Buy zoophilia, get violence free? They do realize they can't get the free violence when zoophilia isn't actually a disorder, right? Can't buy something from one store and expect to obtain credit from a different store, it doesn't work that way.
Anti-zoos, if they truly believe in their claims, might be dispositioned to antagonize violence and sexual offenses from zoophiles. This is known as the "self-fulfilling prophecy." Going out in the street and picking fights with people, for the purpose of shooting those people in self defense is one example of how antagonism works. Entrapment is a type of antagonism.
If a a person consents to have sex with another person, but changes their mind to claim rape because "that person is a zoophile, and zoophiles are known to rape" isnt much different from a self fulfilling prophecy. The rape did not actually exist until they believed in it, contrary from the original opinion.
Yes, there are really messed up people in the world... Some people would dig condoms out of garbage cans to plant evidence in themselves. Other people set themselves up. To these people, there's nothing more exciting than creating crime. There's nothing more exciting than making people believe they can predict the future. Some people like to cause problems that never existed for the purpose of fixing them.
Anti-hero, Anti-zoo, Damsel in Distress, Munchausen. These are a few terms that come to mind.
I'm curious, giving the quality of "studies" I've seen posted, why did you make a distinction enough to comment on this one?
A lot of papers make verbal arguments about theories which are unsupported by any data found in the paper. Also, unless it has been edited no one called this a study just a paper?
Could you elaborate more specifically on why you dislike this paper?
I think it was valuable for the following quote because if you look at them these papers are oft quoted in the bestiality debate:
Because it's still not outstanding evidence. It's just a critique on another paper. That, and I'm somewhat familiar with the institution they work at. I was never a patient myself, mind, but I've seen some of their other academic publishings. They set the bar a fair bit lower than I'd like, suffice to say.
The biggest issue was, as I said, the fact that this was taken as evidence to 'debunk' the entire doctrine. The reality is, this doesn't have much weight, if any. For this community and OP, it's a convenient salve, but not much else.
You are familiar with the fact that authors who explore zoosexuality, as those who explored homosexuality 50 years ago, will only be able to work for places that "lower the bar"?
Anyhow, I'll be adding both the original paper and this critique to the biblography and I would hope any ethical researcher will consider and site the critique when it comes to citing the original paper as well.
I disagree. There are some great institutions that offer opportunities for independent research, and they generally allow an extremely diverse array of topics. It's rare that one would take issue with a publication that isn't hogwash, from my experience. But there's not much sense in pushing the issue past that.
I have more questions but we'll leave it there then.
"Many convicted rapists have abused animals. Therefore bestiality and rape are correlated. Therefore zoophiles should be jailed to keep society safe from rapists."
Impeccable logic right there. Most people who died of cancer consumed dihydrogen monoxide the day before.
Oh, my...correlation doesn mean that one will inevitably lead to another. "Careers" of sadistic rapists have proven that sadism towards humans very often is preceded by sadism towards animals, in these cases , the animals serve as "test runs" for the sadists. Cases of this kind are documented very well...sure, it´s selective bias in play here as no one bothers to verify his findings with a non sadistic control group, but that doesn´t invalidate what has been found out. Is it really still a secret that "zoophiles" are not a homogenic group and sadists can be found among us? If you don´t believe me, just watch Beastforum for a while.
And...how can we demand society to make a distinction between "beasties" and "zoos" if we can´t even agree on the red lines separating those two ourselves? Once again, trench fight mentailty and passive aggressivity prevail. We all complain that society doesn´t want to hear "the truth", but do WE really want to hear the truth? Or how long will we play this infantile "our lies and half truths against yours" game?
I´m so sick and tired of this kindergarden...
I really don't understand what it is you're complaining about.
The lack of demonstrable causality invalidates the criminal-law inference they draw, which is what I was addressing sarcastically.
No.
This statement doesn't make any sense to me. As far as I can tell, we do have a clear agreement on that distinction. Who here is denying the existence of zoosadists? Not me.
No idea what you're referring to. What denial? What lies and half truths on our side? When a pseudo-intellectual antizoo argument is patently ridiculous, I'll damn well ridicule it. That's not dishonest infantile game-playing.
If you say so....enjoy being criminalised your entire life...
Come on 30-30, I was just starting to think you had some reason behind your logic. I know you can do better than this, as I've seen it. Please, up the ante a bit.
Well, why should I? This whole "make zoophilia legal" stuff is basically bullcrap and complaining about "unfair" articles ...has it got us somewhere? Year after year after year the same "debunking" stuff, the same "but it´s flawed and incorrect" sermon...well, has the world changed for the better by now? All this blah blah and yadda yadda...how long until you all realise this war cannot be won by words? I recall some of my Latin lessons " Nemo iudex in causa sua"...you,"we" can blabber all day about how unfair and unjust society treats us ( btw: there are some valid reasons for society to do that), but no one of "us" will ever be heard.
Self absorbed "bearers of the ultimate truth"...blind to all their own fallacies and shortcomings.
Stop this crap and focus on living your life. If everyone would be putting just 30% of the efforts used for blah blah fights with society for protection of privacy instead, we´d all be better off. I simply cannot understand why it is so important how society sees us. And before you start to attack me for saying this, please provide a better alternative than stubborn headbashing against society´s massive concrete wall. By reading all those theoretical debunkings and rants against society, one could think we´re the majority...but we´re not and will never be...there will be no mass movement to legalise "zoophilia".
Just forget this whole idiotic idea, discard it...focus on your life instead.
I don't know, I'd think debunking things with scientific methods would be essential to any movement. Just because it hasn't worked yet and you are able to rant about that isn't proof of anything, frankly.
I'd argue the opposite. The majority is hardly educated enough to make such an assesment. Most people are sadly pretty uneducated.
That ship sailed long ago. I have a job but I'm probably going to be dead in 15 years or so and it's all because of what was done to me due to my zoophilia (not even bestiality mind you, JUST ZOOPHILIA). And you want me to forget? Sorry son, not going to happen.
That´s your problem, man. If you want to keep clinging to the tar baby , it´s your choice. But I won´t anymore. Do what you think is right, but just a few facts for you to acknowledge:
Zoophilia is a highly controversial topic, due to the fact that animals are involved, it´s even more controversial than being homosexual or having a foot fetish. The vast majority of society is against it or at least not very fond of it at all. Even scientists back up the unfavorable picture that is painted of zoophiles and "pariah" scientists like Beetz, Nasswetter and Miletski won´t change the opinion of the scientific community. Additionally, there´s no publicly accepted distinction between zoophilia and bestiality. Often, the z-word is used, but the b-word is meant. We as a community are probably the most un-unanimous group out there, we can´t even agree on the very basics, very much unlike our opposition that shows perfect unanimosity beyond any party membership, political direction or societal status. We´re scattered around the world, unable to organise in an effective way and waste time fighting each other over words, because ...well, "the age of the special snowflake". Those who want to do something about it either fuck up big time (ZETA) because they´re fucking amateurs without any idea what they´re doing until it´s too late and the repercussions hit hard , or are under constant fire from the community itself because...well, again "era of special snowflakes". Our movement has deteriorated; and what the first generation has built, the second generation has demolished thoroughly and diligently. Our communities have become cage fight arenas for hurt egos instead of places for elaborate and beneficial discourse and everybody seems to think it´s more important to talk about something they have never done and probably never will ( about 70 - 75% of online "zoos" will never have anything sexual with an animal) that actually living the life of a zoo.
Our opponents laugh at us and I can understand them absolutely. We´re practically sitting in our holes underground, playing with our BB guns and fantasise about "the revolution" that will "free "all "zoos" from "oppression". But outside, the US army and the Russian forces combined are waiting...and they have REAL guns. We are so self absorbed, we don´t even see the futility of our attempts to "teach the public"...yeah, we don´t even recognise the public DOESN ` T want to be taught by us. But still we have lots of blockheads believing in the "You just have to teach ´em" fairy tale...just browse though the youtube vids reagrding bestiality and see what people like Aluzky are doing, then you might understand why our "struggle" is totally in vain.
Also I wonder why it is so important for "zoos" to seek assurance from society. Hell, I am a zoophile, I know what I am, I know I´m not doing anything wrong with my mares...and that´s practically all there is to know. Who cares if the world calls you an "animal rapist"? Why this automated defense reflex?
So, let´s sum it up: We face an opposition that shows absolute unanimosity, is outnumbering AND outgunning us by a 1 to a mil ratio. On the other side of the trench, there´s this unorganised heap of individuals more interested in making zoophilia the next gay by pushing it into the public reagrdless of what the results of such actions are...and then, we complain about the expectable failure and blame society for "not being openminded". If you, Rannoch, don´t mind wasting your time with wannabe fighters , battling for a goal that is impossible to reach, well, man, it´s your time. If you find meaning in this, good for you...but be warned that this meaning might turn out as a big fucking lie. I even have a bad feeling and believe you are doing this as a sublime form of revenge for what society has done to you...for you, this might sound absolutely legit, but yearing revenge never is a good advisor.
While we´re in a position that absolutely forbids being a picky asshole, there are lots of folks within our community who obviously think we have the upper hand and we´re the ones who dictate all the terms and conditions when interacting with the "normals"...IDK why this is so, might be some special form of megalomania paired with effects from an inherent inferiority complex or whatnot...
When a unorganised minority with a basic lack of discipline tries to fight a well organised and disciplined majority in a head on battle , you don´t need a crystal ball or a university degree to tell how bad this will end...and yet, more and more nutjobs declaring war on society emerge.
Blind actionism, lack of self confidence in one´s sexual orientation, deliberate begging for society´s approval, glorification of loudmouths, exaggerated scepticism towards any new idea that does not fit the "we´re all such a tolerant bunch" narrative, indifference disguised as tolerance, lack of awareness of other people´s perspective (suddenly, the tolerance stops there.Funny, isn´t it?) and all the other numerous shortcomings and personal weaknesses of the involved clientele...
You can argue with random strangers on the internet as much as you please, but fact is, real tolerance is found only in your near environment. There will be no "epiphany" for society, making them all into "zoofriendly" guys and gals, no matter what you say, no matter how much your missionary impetus is...the time for words to be effective is long gone. For every zoo, there are ten beasties out there, destroying what is left of our public image. If you, Rannoch, like to live in debris, well, it´s your choice. But I won´t make my life miserable anymore with all of this crap, I´ve understood that the fight is over before it began and we LOST, ladies and gentlemen. Yeah, we LOST...and all your efforts are practically nothing more than trying to talk off defeat like fans usually do when their team lost an important match. "If they only had been doing X, then they´d won..." Yadda yadda, blah blah....sometimes, simply admitting defeat is the only sane thing left to do. And yeah, all of this won´t lead nowhere. We´d all be well advised to stop and let the dust of the past few years settle. I´ve realised that this isn´t our time, we missed the point where talking would have changed things, the window now is closed and all that is left to do is trying to live our lives in the best possible way we can, undetected and clandestine. Maybe there will be another time where public opinion becomes volatile again and maybe next time, a new generation that has learned their historical lesson is doing things right..but who knows..I´ll surely be dead then and many of you also will be.
I´ve been thinking about this whole shabangabang in here quite a lot lately...and I´ve not been able to identify any benefit I could have from further engaging in your fight with society. Nothing would change for me even if you´re successful and reach your goals. Actually, I´d be terribly ashamed when your actions lead to complete freedom for beasties of all couleurs. So, fight on if that is what you want...but you´re NOT doing this in my name. Game over.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Did you think I'm trying to fight for rights or something? I'm firmly convinced (and I've told you this before when "Tsar" was your word of choice) that is well out of our hands.
I tell my story to those who might listen, regardless of whether they are pro or anti-zoo so that maybe a lesson or two might be learned even if it's only on how to not treat a "passive" zoo. That's all dude. Game over.
I also critisize studies because like it or not, I am college educated and I can't help but see the flaws when presented. If it was a study about how cucumbers become pickles and there was a flaw saying the can sometimes become zucchini, I'd do the same thing.
I thought you were criticizing me for a lack of fight or something earlier? Sheesh, make up your fucking mind man.
As for your recent defeatist nature, I'm guessing Tsar is dead, eh?
So, by that logic, heterosexual sex should be criminalized because hetersexuals can be non-consentual sadists and rapists?
Oh, come on...are you really doing this shitty "false analogy" routine again? Or should I explain why you cannot compare a human-on-human relationship with an animal-on-human one? I´m honestly bored now...
Black and White thinking. They have to make somebody else look like a rapist in order to provide the contrast which makes themselves look like saints. That explains the splitting between "bestiality" and "zoophilia."
It's like trying to tell a person with 10 billion dollars that they're going to be dead someday, equal to the person with 0 dollars. They'll have a mental breakdown and lash out, kind of similar to how somebody lashed out and made sex with animals illegal.
If they can't be the "only ones" worthy of sex with animals then they will make the act illegal for everybody. It's a superiority complex thing... like the BDSM mentality abd sadism. Usually directed towards the "unworthy bestialists", or anybody who has sex with animals that isn't related to themselves in some way.
"Me me me me...but everybody else is wrong and I'll create the law to make their wrongness official!"
Most things in life revolve around this concept. The people with the biggest egos are the biggest jackasses and impose the most restrictions on others.
Ever heard the phrase "correlation is not causation" 30-30?
That is actually considered a fallacy that was much propagated by two case studies of serial killers in which they said they progressed in this manner after being interviewed in the 1970s. When it was investigated further and some effort put into understanding the correlation it turns out that it is not predictive in any real sense of the word. There are many political reasons why this is still propagated in the social justice/sociology world, however.
It turns out the serial killers were just saying what people wanted to hear for purposes of manipulation. It's actually a great example of just how hard it is to make definitive statements about human behaviour. It was known as the MacDonald Triad and has been shown to not really reflect reality. To the point where the FBI, who once embraced the idea, has significantly backed off of it. One paper to read might be Animal Abuse as a Sentinel for Human Violence: A Critique describing the link between types of violence as under theorised and over used.
Welcome to grade 1.
Edit: I see they have been "cleaning up" the wikipedia entry and forgetting to mention that the MacDonald Triad is heavily criticised. It was a much more interesting read a few years ago. I noticed also that zoosadism is now linked from there... I wonder if that is part of the "neutal" POV crusade on wikipedia zoo topics.
Sex with animals leads to violence commited by people who are not zoos. Remember that story about the Chinese dog shelter owner was brutally beaten by an angry mob after he was caught having sex with the dogs?
How about the violence committed against people who have their faces and mugshots posted all over the internet after an incident? Violence can be committed by law enforcement, in the form of restraint. Placing people in positions where they would be subject to violence. Violence isn't only a direct or physical action.
Not ruling out the fact that zoophiles are all different and can commit acts of violence, however it makes more sense to claim Anti-Zoos are more likely to be violent since their sole purpose is to commit and enable acts of violence in the name of zoophilia, against zoophilia. Some of them even have doctrines which claim it is the "rule" or the "law" to commit violence against people who have sex with animals. Therefore, the relationship between Anti-Zoos and violence is obvious, while the relationship between zoophilia and violence is isolated or situational.
There is no "zoophile doctrine", rules or laws anywhere which claims a zoophile must be violent towards people who don't have sex with animals...there is no rule anywhere which claims a zoophile must be violent towards people who do have sex with animals, therefore violence cannot be associated as a tradition of zoophilia unless the violence was assimilated from elsewhere or from a non-zoo source.