KynophileDog lover 13 points on 2017-04-28 02:19:28
TL;DR: Sex with animals happens a lot, like donkey fucking in Colombia. Scandinavian countries recently banned it because they were worried about perverted Viking vacations. Then in Canada, some guy got off on a technicality because their criminal law defined buggery to include only penetration, and apparently the whole government failed to pass a broader bestiality ban. That's unacceptable, and these people need to spend at least two years in jail, get counseling, and be banned from owning animals, for reasons.
UntamedAnomaly 11 points on 2017-04-28 09:16:05
Same bullshit, different day. I don't know why we keep posting these things here. It's not like we aren't aware of the arguments they try to make, or like we can combat them somehow, or not realize there is a massive amount of people who don't like us or understand us. I mean, isn't that part of the reason this place exists? To have community in place of facing all of that shit by oneself?
They_are_behind_usWarCanine Throwaway. Thoughts of horror grows and twists itself. 6 points on 2017-04-28 14:40:09
Because a daily dose of idiocy keeps us alive.
I agree, though. Because y'know, this is actually an overdose.
Skgrsgpf 2 points on 2017-04-28 23:14:02
To have community in place of facing all of that shit by oneself?
On the other hand, ignoring the anti-zoo shit altogether might lead to complacency. Ideally, there should be a balance between good/bad things, but perhaps bad things show up more often because they are more common. There used to be a lot of pro-zoo essays and articles (up to around 2009 and 2010), but now it seems to all be anti (in the media/press). The people who were thinking of zoo in terms of tolerance and "sexual orientation" have largely been replaced by people thinking of it in terms of "criminalizing" it.
or like we can combat it somehow
It's true that there appears to be no one combating the antis -- for example, in recent discussions on the current anti-zoo bill in Nevada, nobody spoke in opposition to it.
Sheppsoldier -1 points on 2017-04-29 21:49:49
Nobody spoke against the laws because they're expecting us to pay them to speak.
They don't actually care about any morality concerning the act of sex with animals, they're just doing it for their own profit or pleasure of hurting people.
They want us to pay them lots and lots of money before taking our side, because it's the only thing better than watching innocent people behind bars.
These laws are making the country feel like a wasteland future run by robots with no human emotion or feelings, mentally ill animal cultists, and a hoard of other despotic monsters.
UntamedAnomaly 1 point on 2017-05-04 01:21:31
They'll never speak in opposition, because the truth is, peer pressure is a hell of a drug and most everyone thinks we are monsters. Look at all the work just gay people have had to go through just to get to where they are now and that's a pretty accepted non-hetero orientation and gay people outnumber zoos by a ton, as well as them STILL not having equal rights everywhere. We, we are at the bottom of the food chain as far as acceptance goes, people view us in the same line as child molesters.
And of course we hear less positivity for our side, because now that laws have been popping up left and right, with pretty harsh punishments as well as vaguely worded interpretation that could be twisted to incarcerate and punish a zoo or zoo sympathizer, nevermind that we as a community are pretty divided and unorganized, we are failing to get a leg up in this race for rights and recognition. Even if we were somehow united, we don't have much faith that our numbers are large enough to make any difference.
We already are complacent, because none of us want to suffer the consequences of standing up. So we sit back, try to live our lives as secretly as possible and hope we live to see the end of our days without having a target painted on our backs or the backs of those we care about most.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-28 22:52:40
these people need to spend at least two years in jail, get counseling, and be banned from owning animals
Were you summarizing the author's points? Or did you mean "these people think zoos need to spend..."
KynophileDog lover 2 points on 2017-04-29 04:03:38
The entirety was a summary. My own view is that we should legalize sex with animals and simultaneously strengthen animal cruelty laws and enforcement measures to prevent the sorts of abuse that actually do appear to be linked to violent crimes toward humans.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-03 15:52:16
I liked how this brought attention to the horrible things that people do. Prayer in church happens too, so we must put God first and prevent those people from continuing their sick practice.
KynophileDog lover 1 point on 2017-05-03 22:11:56
Some religious people commit violent crimes in the name of their religion, like killing sinners and bombing buildings. Therefore, all religious practice is inherently harmful and should be outlawed, regardless of its consequences in individual cases. That is the parallel argument here.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-04 01:27:41
Yes.
Unfortunately there is this mainstream religion called "The Law" which revolves around a book...because no other religion would allow trash "Science" as the inspiration for feeding a deluded habit of writing new scary passages to their books, stigmatizing and punishing about all sorts of things.
They just write whatever they want, about whoever they want, to their books with no regard for the original creator or the time period in which it was created. Language has changed and interpretations aren't always accurate.
So yes... following old religion is inherently harmful. People are all following the storybooks of ancestors as if they were the truth - and the psychopathic death notebook, "The Law", of the demented modern people and leaders of voice.
They_are_behind_usWarCanine Throwaway. Thoughts of horror grows and twists itself. 4 points on 2017-04-28 09:05:58
In the future, lawmakers must do more to protect the welfare of an animal, and can work to deter this behavior with increased penalties, such as: two to three years’ imprisonment coupled with psychiatric help and placing the perpetrator’s name on a bestiality registry to prevent him or her from owning animals.
Why can't I punch people trough the screen?
People are getting crazier and crazier...
It makes me sick people think we deserve that, I hope it ever backfires to them some day reaaaal bad... I swear...
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-28 22:59:06
I agree; punishing zoos with harsh penalties will accomplish nothing -- it will only make their lives miserable and the lives of their animals miserable. Doing this is not "protecting" animals. Punishing zoos by jailing them, stealing their animals and forbidding them from owning animals in the future is a form of oppression, and is wrong. There should not be "punishment" to begin with, because it shouldn't be a "crime" to begin with.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-01 09:28:09
[deleted]
Darkspirit5 2 points on 2017-04-28 17:46:14
in parts of Colombia, it is a rite of passage for a male to have sex with a donkey
I was born in the wrong culture
In the future, lawmakers must do more to protect the welfare of an animal, and can work to deter this behavior with increased penalties, such as: two to three years’ imprisonment
Seems a bit too harsh
coupled with psychiatric help
Uh...
and placing the perpetrator’s name on a bestiality registry to prevent him or her from owning animals
Joke's on them. I could never own an animal anyway.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-03 14:32:47
Don't get too comfortable not having animals. Once they find out people are comfortable with not owning animals they'll just find something else to criminalize
Figure they're treating our lives like a hostage trade. They'll let us have healthcare and marijuana if we give up our "safe sex." If we don't have animals or sex with animals, they'll just find another hole to rape us in.
Of course, some people wouldnt have jobs if every harmless action was legalized. Yet, I do not care if those people have jobs or not because any person who would support the laws criminalizing harmless action including the act sex with animals... should have their own families starved and buried in front of them.
OnzaZ 1 point on 2017-07-21 12:11:21
I originally come from the an area where that rite happens.
Don't get so fooled, sex might be ok but love is quite forbidden; plus this is only in quite rural areas, and if it happens that it's not your rite and they get to know that you are an actual zoophile, and specially if you are into males, you are in fucking trouble, you'd rather have problems with police, several times; I wouldn't want to be burned alive. Even when getting caught is harder because even you can admit it's just you trying to get release, which only works as long as you are male and it's a female in question, and only in specific rural towns, let it happen several times and you are screwed. Simply said, good for occasional bestialists, bad for zoos.
I have found Europe to be way safer from zoos than Colombia. Don't be a fool.
Skgrsgpf 4 points on 2017-04-28 22:32:26
As usual, this article is an anti-zoo discussing zoo within the context of "criminality". People ought to stop thinking of zoos in terms of "crime", and instead think of it as a human condition which should be decriminalized.
I wish there were more articles made by people who want to decriminalize it and make it more acceptable, but I guess the anti articles are more common.
This is a quote, from the article, that I didn't like:
"The fact that bestiality is a common occurrence in some parts of the world is horrifying... Lawmakers must... work to deter this behavior with increased penalties, such as: two to three years’ imprisonment coupled with psychiatric help and placing the perpetrator’s name on a bestiality registry to prevent him or her from owning animals."
Notice the bias of the author when sex with animals is called "horrifying". Also, the suggested advice is exactly not what should happen: zoos should not be put on some zoo "registry", zoos should not be imprisoned, and they don't need "psychiatric help" just because they're zoo. It is also wrong to prevent a zoo from owning animals.
Instead of trying to understand zoos, the author has a "throw them in jail" attitude, along with the flawed idea that they would be "protecting" animals by doing that.
By the way, despite what the author said about Colombia, sex with animals was banned in Colombia 2 years ago.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-29 00:09:41
It can be argued that you have a bias as well, and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I'd say everyone here has a bias in favor of legalization, with a number of exceptions.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-29 07:00:01
True, but as a counterargument to that, I'd argue we're more experienced with the actual moral issues with zoophilia and the validity of the claims made against it than most of the people passing these anti-bestiality laws.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-29 10:53:12
To counter that still, there exist criminologists and other researchers that devote decades of work into investigating bestiality and animal attraction, yet are themselves still against it.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-04-29 21:30:48
They aren't devoting anything to any research. They're being paid to do it. That means they're taking time, taking bribes, and not doing the job right so it can last longer.
They're screwing up our lives, freedoms and stealing our time so they can get paid and recognized for theirs.
That's years of research, wasted time and money that shouldn't have ever be proposed.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-29 23:41:17
Or they're just interested in the topic in a context of criminology.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-01 08:30:25
[deleted]
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-29 22:29:16
Those people have confirmation bias; that is, seeing what they want to see in their research (because they already have an anti-zoo prejudice to begin with).
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-29 23:33:41
But confirmation bias is an interpretation bias. The numbers they have support their beliefs on an objective basis, regardless of whether they are accurate.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-30 21:36:37
Their interpretation of the data they look at is flawed (correlation/causation error), leading to wrong conclusions.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-30 21:48:49
But the entire basis of science is in observed correlations. We have to assume causation or we'll get nothing done.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-30 22:30:21
So when an anti-zoo says "studies say zoos are likely to be violent criminals" -- you agree with that? (Because I don't).
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-30 22:45:58
Not an issue of agreeing with it, just that the numbers as they are now, in the studies which they cite, do support their claims.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-30 23:30:16
You do realize the only study which supports that claim at the moment was conducted on a group of convicted sex offenders?
I don't think that's enough evidence to make ANY claims regarding the population at large.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 00:27:27
Hensley C, Tallichet SE, Dutkiewicz EL. Recurrent childhood animal cruelty: Is there a relationship to adult recurrent interpersonal violence? Criminal Justice Review. 2009;34:248–257.
Merz-Perez L, Heide KM, Silverman IJ. Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2001;45:556–573.
That's from about 12 minutes of looking. I tried to avoid lit reviews or anything that relied on studies in the list already. Hopefully the two researchers that drop by pull through later, though.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-05-01 01:14:36
The problem is that many of those citing these studies assume that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty", which isn't true.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 01:17:35
They use assessments outside of bestiality to identify cruelty and interpersonal violence, so it doesn't really matter.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-05-01 01:19:06
So, therefore, these studies cannot be used as a justification to condemn zoos and/or all sex with animals.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 01:28:27
No, your problem doesn't matter because they're using other identifiers to form their analysis and conclusions.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-05-01 22:37:55
Well, those people incarcerated for "zoophilia" must be victim to a miraculous and mystical transformation; when they´re NOT in jail, all those laws are "unjust" and throw totally "normal" and "harmless" "zoophiles" into jail. But when the very same folks are IN JAIL and checked by real scientists, they suddenly become "non representatives" of "zoophilia" because all their negative and bad traits suddenly show.
I believe it´s totally futile to discuss with Skg...and people who share his way of selective thinking. You´ll never make people like him rethink their entire approach, you´ll never get ´em to evaluate studies correctly. Sorry to say, but I cannot take anyone who still believes in the "studies" conducted by Miletski et al. , but refuses to believe in a vast pool of studies that are BACKING their findings with actual proof seriously. Miletski , Nasswetter and all the other "zoo iconic" "researchers" never validated anything they´ve been told by the "zoophiles" they interviewed. Anyone can claim how "loving and caring" their "zoo relationship" is....regardless of what actually happens in real life. The "Negative" studies always back up their findings with valid proof....
Why are "totally harmless zoophiles" threatened by the "unjust" law representatives for the harmlessness of zoophilia, but when incarcerated and analysed by actual scientists , they suddenly undergo this mystical transformation of "when they´re in jail, they´re not representative of zoophilia anymore because they´re in jail"?
Fact is: the reasons to engage in sex with animals are manifold. From shyness with humans that makes you "testcopulate" animals as a preparation for "real" human contacts" to full blown objectification, egocenteredness and even sadistic traits (full control over the desired sex object) , you can find everything in between in "zoophiles".
And if you take a quick look in the biggest "zoophile" site (BF), you´ll see exactly how the negative studies aren´t as flawed as people like Skg... want to make you think.
Whoever treats zoophiles and "zoophiles" as a homogenic group of poeple and bases his/her assumptions (´cause that´s what we ALL rely on, nobody knows for sure if sex with animals isn´t detrimental for them) on that flawed premise is definitely not making a scientifically valid point here. I´m not saying that sex with animals per se and 100% sure is detrimental for the animals, but I´m also not saying that it isn´t. I´ve met so many "bona fide zoos" in all these years I´m active online ...and most of them have shown some very disturbing traits sooner or later. Hate for humans, aggression, self fooling, other mental problems....you pick one out of any psycho-book and you can be sure it won´t take long to find some "zoophile" suffering from it.
Until there´s a reliable UHAT (universal human animal translator), no study, neither a positive nor a negative, has any value...regarding the animal factor in the equation. But the negative studies hold value insofar as they analyse the actual "zoophilic" person. As a valuation of the basic character of the incarcerated "zoophile", they hold value....
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-05-01 10:10:37
Study #1 is new to me, thanks. I'll concede there.
Study #2 is the study that most pull from, as mentioned, conducted on inmates.
Study #3 is generic animal cruelty and not quite related to generic bestiality which may or may not involve cruelty. I'm dismissing it as such.
Study #4 I suspect draws from study #2, but as it's only a an abstract I can't say. The abstract seems to go over existing laws and will probably reference the same #2 study, but it hides behind a paywall so I can't confirm.
I appreciate you bringing #1 to my attention, but that's one isolated case. (I don't mean that in a dismissive context: It's literally one isolated individual case study from what I can see.) I still stand by my claim: The majority of these studies seem to be based on the same flawed study applied inappropriately, study #2.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 11:46:08
There are also those two other studies, which you can probably scihub.
I don't think the 3 I posted is what I meant to post, but eh. Its late.
4 is a lit review drawing from a couple dozen studies, which I'm copying and pasting from their bibliography(pardon any formatting errors, I'm doing this before bed and want to finish up asap) Lit reviews aren't my favorite to cite, but they have a good amount of influence and are useful for what they are.
Abel, G. (2008). What can 44,000 men and 12,000 boys with sexual behavior problems
teach us about preventing sexual abuse? Paper presented at the annual training conference
of the California coalition on sexual offending, San Francisco, California.
Abel, G., Becker, J. V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittelman, M., & Rouleau, J. L. (1988).
Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy
of Psychiatry and the Law, 16(2), 153–168.
Ackerson, L., & Highlander, M. (1928). The relation of enuresis to intelligence, conduct
and personality problems and other factors. The Psychology Clinic, 17, 119–127.
Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal
Medicine, 18(2), 73–78.
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders:
DSM-III-R (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders:
DSM-5 (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Animal Legal Defense Fund (2014). Animal protection laws of the United States of America
& Canada, 9th ed.
Animals & Society Institute (2014). The AniCare approach: Interrupting the cycle of violence.
(Ann Arbor, MI).
Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. R. (1999). The relationship of animal abuse to
violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14(9), 963–976.
California Penal Code (2014). §597: Cruelty to animals.
Climent, C. E., & Ervin, F. R. (1972). Historical data in the evaluation of violent subjects. A
hypothesis generating study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27(5), 621–624.
Cole, L. T. (1971). Dog fucker (Dogarama).
Favre, D., & Tsang, V. (1993). The development of the anti-cruelty laws during the 1800s.
Detroit College of Law review.
Felthous, A. R. (1980). Aggression against cats, dogs and people. Child Psychiatry and
Human Development, 10(3), 169–177.
Felthous, A. R., & Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, firesetting, and cruelty to animals: The significance
of two thirds of this triad. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 24(1), 240–246.
Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1987). Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggression
against people: A review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(6), 710–717.
Fleming, W. M., Jory, B., & Burton, D. L. (2002). Characteristics of juvenile offenders admitting
to sexual activity with nonhuman animals. Society and Animals, 10(1), 31–45.
Gleyzer, R., Felthous, A. R., & Holzer, C. E. (2002). Animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders.
The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 30(2), 257–265.
Hellman, D. S., & Blackman, N. (1966). Enuresis, firesetting and cruelty to animals: A triad
predictive of adult crime. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122(12), 1431–1435.
Henderson, B. B., Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2011). Childhood animal cruelty methods
and their link to adult interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(11),
2211–2227.
Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2004). Exploring the link between recurrent acts of childhood
and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime. Criminal Justice
Review, 29(2), 304–316.
Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2008). The effect of inmates' self-reported childhood and adolescent
animal cruelty: Motivations on the number of convictions for adult violent
interpersonal crimes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 52(2), 175–184.
Hensley, C., Tallichet, S. E., & Dutkiewicz, E. L. (2010). Childhood bestiality: A potential
precursor to adult interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3),
557–567.
Hensley, C., Tallichet, S. E., & Singer, S. D. (2006). Exploring the possible link between
childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21(7), 910–923.
Holoyda, B., & Newman, W. (2014). Zoophilia and the law: Legal responses to a rare
paraphilia. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(4),
412–420.
Ibrahim, D. (2006). The anticruelty statute: A study in animal welfare. Journal of Animal
Law & Ethics, 175–204.
Kellaher, D. C. (2014). Sexual behavior and autism spectrum disorders: An update and
discussion. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17, 25.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male.
Philadelphia: Saunders.
Laws, D. R., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2008). Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Macdonald, J. M. (1963). The threat to kill. American Journal of Psychiatry, 120(2),
125–130.
Macdonald, J. M. (1967). Homicidal threats. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(4),
475–482.
McNeil, L., Osborne, J., & Pavia, P. (2005). The other Hollywood: The uncensored oral history
of the porn film industry (1st ed.). New York: Regan Books.
Mead, M. (1964). Cultural factors in the cause and prevention of pathological homicide.
Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 28, 11–22.
Mehta, M. D. (2001). Pornography in Usenet: A study of 9800 randomly selected images.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(6), 695–703.
Miletski, H. (1999). Bestiality–zoophilia: An exploratory study. The Institute for the Advanced
Study of Human Sexuality.
Miletski, H. (2001). Zoophilia: Implications for therapy. Journal of Sexual Education and
Therapy, 26(2), 85–89.
New York Revised Statutes (1866). 682.2.
New York Revised Statutes (1867). 375.2–.9.
Otto, S. K. (2005). State animal protection laws — The next generation. Animal Law, 11,
131–166
Overton, J. C., Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2012). Examining the relationship between
childhood animal cruelty motives and recurrent adult violent crimes toward humans.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 899–915.
Peretti, P. O., & Rowan, M. (1983). Zoophilia: Factors related to its maintained practice.
Panminerva Medica, 25, 127–131.
Ranger, R., & Fedoroff, P. (2014). Commentary: Zoophilia and the law. Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(4), 421–426.
Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1996). Murderers
who rape and mutilate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(3), 273–287.
Ryder, R. D. (1989). Animal revolution: Changing attitudes towards speciesism. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Tapia, F. (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 2(2), 70–77.
Tapia, F., Jekel, J., & Dmoke, H. R. (1960). Enuresis: An emotional symptom. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 130, 61–66.
Texas Penal Code (2007a). 42.092.
Texas Penal Code (2007b). 42.09.
The Vice Guide to Sex (2012). Asses of the Caribbean.
Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., Terrell, K., & Howard, M. O.
(2009). Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: Results from the National
Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 43(15), 1213–1218.
Vermont Laws (1846). Act 34.
Wax, D. E., & Haddock, V. G. (1974). Enuresis, firesetting and animal cruelty in male adolescent
delinquents: A triad predictive of violent behavior. The Journal of Psychiatry
and Law, 2(1), 45–71.
Wisch, R. F. (2010). Brief summary of state cruelty laws. (Retrieved July 2, 2015 from)
https://www.animallaw.info/intro/state-anti-cruelty-laws
Wright, J., & Hensley, C. (2003). From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation
hypothesis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 47(1), 71–88.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-05-02 03:39:18
I'll concede as it wasn't my original point to say all zoo studies are misleading (my point was simply to watch out for selection bias, not that all zoo studies are misapplied this way) and you are obviously more well read on this than me. Not surprising, frankly, given I didn't even know about scihub... my college days are dated. ;)
You still may note in the citation list above, there is still a surprising amount of criminology and draws from criminal study groups. This is why you can't (generally speaking) apply it to the general population. That is my sole and only point.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-05-01 01:17:28
Their claims are not supported, because as /u/OS2Oslov said, the sample selection is invalid (i.e. a group of incarcerated people), and their assumptions are wrong (such as their assumption that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty").
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 01:27:14
The existence of a tertiary assumption doesn't matter. Their investigations don't rely on bestiality to justify their assertions. The first one identified the death of an animal during intercourse, and a subsequent lack of emotional response in an otherwise not criminally active male. The second one found that sexual abuse and cruelty to nonhuman animals were correlated with interpersonal violence. These studies do have control groups. It's important when looking for a criminal correlation to actually use incarcerated individuals for your study. There's no use in figuring out criminal correlations in people that never run astray of the law.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-05-01 10:16:30
It's important when looking for a criminal correlation to actually use incarcerated individuals for your study. There's no use in figuring out criminal correlations in people that never run astray of the law.
Yes, but you know better than to assume all bestialists are incarcerated, or even that bestiality is a universal crime. It's not. That's a silly way to approach this when trying to applying to the general bestiality-practitioner population, as is often done.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-05-01 23:52:12
The studies are still flawed because they look at specific cases of actual abuse, and then erroneously assume that ALL sex with animals is "cruel" and "abusive" -- this is not true. And in this case, because the "control group" is a group of atypical individuals (incarcerated individuals) it distorts the data. Most zoos are not violent to humans, and if one looks only at incarcerated individuals, one will come to incorrect conclusions.
In other words, the data they're getting is not being used properly, nor is it being obtained properly.
There is also the problem of people assuming that all sex with animals is "sexual abuse", which is incorrect. The issue is that sex with an animal is not abusive in and of itself, yet that notion is not recognized in these studies.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 23:57:24
You didn't read them did you.
TokenHorseGuy 1 point on 2017-05-01 09:22:09
I know you've claimed to be exposed to research in the past, but I find your support of poor research methods and misuse of data to be a little strange, so maybe you can explain it further. Let me try to explain my viewpoint.
If I tried to understand something about social drinking of soft drinks and my population was limited to people convicted of hit-and-run DUIs after having rum-and-Cokes, my conclusions about the legal/ethical implications of drinking soft drinks will not be valid in the context of overall soft drink consumption, because I failed to make my population sufficiently independent from other factors when designing the study.
I agree that "the entire basis of science is in observed correlations" but this doesn't change the fact that some observations are more accurate than others. There is no mandate to move forward or "get something done" here. The closest we have to a mandate is, as a free society, to avoid imprisoning people for believing the world is round, at least until we know actual, material harm will come from that belief.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-05-01 10:00:56
I state what is, not what should be, in cases like these. I don't recall supporting anything in recent history, frankly.
I think it's a little overblown just how poorly done people here seem to think the studies are, but the quality of the studies wasn't the focus. It's just the conclusions that the numbers supported.
TokenHorseGuy 1 point on 2017-05-06 22:09:04
I state what is, not what should be, in cases like these.
I'm stating what is, too: Overwhelmingly biased studies are not valid. See the example above.
Much like taking a person with teeth rotting out of their mouth to a dentist and asking if that person has a cavity, at some point a fine-toothed analysis is no longer required to see that a problem exists.
It's not clear to me what you're arguing as "what is" but I can say that responses like "all studies have bias!" is not really the horse I'd be betting on, in such a discussion. :)
Focusing on conclusions instead of quality of data is something that results in witch trials. Which, not surprisingly, is more or less where we are right now.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-04-30 23:25:11
And I would ask their opinion at the start of their research, and claim self-fullfilling prophecy is at play here, but even I will admit there are two sides to this coin.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-29 22:39:20
And yet, the voices and opinions of zoos are never taken into consideration in legislative discussions (such as the recent ones in Nevada), because zoos are always absent. Whenever a state such as Nevada makes an unjust anti-zoo bill, there is never any opposition to it (because of the absence of zoos / zoo supporters), which is troubling.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-29 22:30:07
When someone calls sex with animals "horrifying" (as the author of the article did), that is more than just bias -- it is malice.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-04-29 23:27:26
Or they're stating a subjective truth. It's not a desire to do evil.
Emphasis on subjective.
Sheppsoldier 0 points on 2017-04-29 21:16:11
The situation really no different than if the USA was invaded and occupied by foreign invaders. The invaders would take over and probably change our laws, providing excuses for them to kidnap and makes wives from our spouses, children and animals.
This is why the laws against sex with animals are bad. The people who supported these laws are no different than barbarian invaders, using their power change our way of life, to steal our family members (human or animal) and "adopting" them into slavery.
It's probably better to just drop all this talk and maim the hell out of anyone who decides they're going to join or support the animal sex witch hunting. The way things are going now, if we don't snuff them out theyre not going to stop until we're all dead and our real human children are choking on their dicks.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-04-30 01:26:32
Yeah, that´s exactly what we need...a homicidal maniac promoting his extinction fantasies via an online zoo forum.... /s sigh
Fun fact: Germany illegalised bestiality in 2013. I slept with my mare before that date and I sleep with my mare after that date, so I know both from first hand experience...and as far as I am concerned, nothing has changed really. It was dangerous to be caught before the law went into effect in july 2013 and it is dangerous after the legal ban. The only thing that´s different: the "pot" has become bigger because the government raised it with the new law. So what? And nobody shall dare to pull out the usual "....but sooo many zoos are getting arrested these days!" bullshit. The vast majority of these people would equally run into legal trouble if there were no laws prohibiting interspecies sex because the necessary irresponsibility, the parallel dimension you have to drift into to get caught in flagranti and blaming others for it and the notorious "act now, think later" mentality would still be a major issue of these folks.
Nobody "takes zoophilia away" from me as authorities haven´t been able to take away cannabis from me. No authority has the power to dictate my life if I keep it private and hidden from the public.
What you, among many others in here, aren´t getting right: the zoophile community ´s current status is comparable to "has standed on an unknown and maybe very hostile island"....and you, among others, are fantasising about where your pool table will be located in your living room.....despite the fact you won´t live long enough to even start building the house in which the living room is because , before luxury, survival is fundamental. Misanalysing the situation in the way the loudmouths and mouthpieces, with you as their most prominent representant in here, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the community....we don´t need another Doug Spink.
I´m not a witch, I´m not "hunted down" because I fuckin´ keep my shit PRIVATE....basic survival instincts active here, mate!
At least in Germany, you can only be condemned if there is valid proof of your "wrongdoings"...and if any "zoo" is dumb enough to put that proof out there by themselves (even when I´m considering your "...but there are other people blackmailing "zoos" with porn " as legit and not a bogus distraction tactic only applicable on a tiny fraction of "zoos"), he/she has to deal with the consequences. Shut your doors, draw the curtains, don´t let anyone you´re not trusting 1000% near ANY hard proof of your sexual "interspecies adventures" and you´re good. This shouldn´t be hard to understand nor should it be hard to support: cherish your privacy and watch your mouth. As Shopenhauer said: " All of our problems come from not being able to be alone"....think about what a respectable German grandmaster of philosophy said although he probably never heard of "zoophilia" all of his life...still, highly relevant for our problem, isn´t it?
Lots of nations have recently "banned" what many of us like to do....how can anybody ever think it would be a great idea to go for the full frontal confrontation treatment right now?
How often do I have to say it that with our small numbers, with our desolate condition as a "community" (like a boat full of captains all claiming the steering wheel for themselves) and with our relatively little "mass appeal" as animal fuckers, open battle is definitely NOT the way to go and/or succeed?
What´s the best way for a 10 y. o. to fight Wladimir Klitschko? Only NOT to fight fuckin´ Wladimir Klitschko, goddamn! But what a 10 y.o. CAN do is to use GUERRILLA TACTICS and seek situations where Klitschko´s strength is equalised by other factors: surprise, knowledge of territory, clever planning, using the 1 in a million chance. Why is it so hard to realise we´re NOT IN THE POSITION to demand ANYTHING from society at the moment?
Gosh, don´t you all realise how stuck we´re in this dead end? How unrealistic your "legalise it!" crap really is? And going on a "anti zoo" killing spree certainly will net us lots of sympathy and support.....from serial killers for sure.... sigh
They_are_behind_usWarCanine Throwaway. Thoughts of horror grows and twists itself. 1 point on 2017-04-30 21:08:11
Just because you don't suffer from it doesn't mean anyone doesn't suffer from it.
Or is it because you're the badass dank snowflake who doesn't get offended and is basically invincible?
If bestiality is ever legalized then that means we won't get arrested for it. There wouldn't be no ''can you prove the animal did give consent?'' because they chose to legalize it in the first place, some thought must have put behind it.
And that would break the whole ''innocent until proven guilty'' concept.
We do suffer from these laws.
We cannot talk about zoophilia in any way. That may not be a problem to you, but maybe to others.
Many zoos live in fear every day. Every. Day.
It doesn't even matter if a zoophile wants to talk about it or not, it's the freedom of it. Just the idea that we can't talk about it or our lives and our animal's lives are ruined forever is sickening.
Many zoos have problems and cannot talk about it because we aren't allowed to talk about anything zoo related.
What are they supposed to do? Just let their problems eat them away until they go absolutely crazy?
And what are zoos supposed to do who live with others or have their animals in more public spaces?
I get it. We shouldn't talk about it because it is a risk to us and our animals. But that's the thing: That's wrong.
Today, uploading videos of yourself shagging an animal is dumb. But only because we'll get punished for it.
It's sick that we have to obey to a set of rules and other's don't. It's a whole lot of trouble that should not happen.
Yet, they've done nothing wrong and are doing the same non-zoos do. It isn't really the zoophile's fault, more like fault of who's responsible for such laws.
People who have to hide their identities and claim they're normal. They have to put their ''fake'' mask on and pretend. All because otherwise their lives would be unfairly ruined...
Does that sound familiar to you? Right, it's fucked up.
Why is it so hard to realise we´re NOT IN THE POSITION to demand ANYTHING from society at the moment?
Ah yes, the waiting game.
That time's when it's 60493, when we're all dead before 2100 even hit.
So when do you think that is, then?
At least zoos can start thinking about it or even try.
But I never will, because in my opinion that's useless: Humans will never change. People still believe in invisible sky people that have magic and created us, so that's an instant no for me.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-04-30 22:04:40
If bestiality is ever legalized
The problem is that right now the trend has been massively towards criminalization. Here are some of the places that have banned sex with animals recently:
And yet, not once has there been a decriminalization or legalization of zoo anywhere in the world (on it's own merit -- not counting the repeal of "sodomy" laws)
We cannot talk about zoophilia in any way.
That is a problem, and it's part of the reason these new laws keep getting created unopposed (the pro-zoos are silent, and in the closet. So only the anti-zoos are heard). It also means zoos can't express themselves freely. Zoos also lack any organization.
Is silence hurting zoos? Yes and no -- yes because new laws keep getting made, no in that silence protects oneself. But as you said, it doesn't feel good to have to be silent, and silence perpetuates the "status quo" of a progressively worse legal situation for zoos.
Many zoos live in fear every day.
Correct -- and that is one of the reasons anti-zoo laws are wrong. The fear can also lead to depression and anxiety.
Many zoos have problems and cannot talk about it because we aren't allowed to talk about anything zoo related.
Correct -- and if zoo were legal, people could be more open to discussing their problems and finding solutions, rather then having to hide in fear all the time. They could also be more honest with their veterinarians without the fear of being arrested/punished. Anti-zoo laws won't stop people from having sex with animals -- they just make zoos go further "underground".
Ah yes, the waiting game. That time's when it's 60493, when we're all dead before 2100 even hit.
MLK said that there's never a bad time for justice. (Actual quote: "The time is always right to do what is right"). Though zoos face an extremely difficult task in eliminating anti-zoo laws. And who is going to speak up against anti-zoo laws when the conditions are so hostile?
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-02 02:49:14
"We cannot talk about zoophilia"....posting in a public forum constantly talking about zoophilia. Uh-huh...
"We do suffer from these laws"...and how exactly do you suffer? Please name one, just ONE friggin´ case where a genuine zoo NOT involved in pornmaking or fencehopping is suffering REAL consequences. Those who are indeed "suffering" are those who cannot keep off the public´s eye...keep it private and no suffering will ever occur.
"Many zoos live in fear.Every day." Whose fault is it when certain people, mostly those with no practical experience, constantly shit their pants because they see ghosts? Life IS danger, learn to live with risks, learn how to deal with risks, learn to correctly avoid risks.
It´s really as simple as that.
Your pov is just bogus...or, as AB has put it in another thread: "Hell, the arrests for bestiality are already in the two digit range....they´re coming at me tomorrow for sure." Learn to manage your irrational fears rather than trying to impose your twisted perceptions onto society. It isn´t as dangerous as most of you like to portray it.
BTW: Having the "freedom" to talk about it is exactly what has taken over in all the "zoo forums"; it´s apparently NOT being able to live a zoo life anymore, it´s about rubbing it into every random bloke´s face without having to fear consequences or repercussions, right? See my Schopenhauer quote from my earlier post....blah,blah,blah, yadda,yadda,yadda...
My point: LIVING a zoo life isn´t having effects on society when done in privacy. But TALKING about it is definitely having effects on privacy, just take a look at BF and how many openly admit that this "freedom" of easily accessible animal porn and the filter bubble that´s erected in such forums is what "got them hooked". Talking about zoophilia in public (yes, the internet also counts as public) IS detrimental to society as a whole. Many so called "zoophiles" would never ever have been confronted with animal sex if there wasn´t so many eejits openly promoting (" Not comparable to human contact; orgiastic, must try") bestiality online. "We crave what we see" Hannibal Lecter,The silence of the Lambs
"And what are zoos supposed to do who live in more public spaces?" Are you friggin´ kidding me? I lived with my mare in open sight for all the other horseowners and visitors of my riding club. Yet I´m still not in jail. How´s that possible? Well, read my stuff and you might can a small glimpse of an idea what the REAL issues are the people have with "us" zoophiles...
"Today, uploading a video of yourself shagging an animal is dumb.But only because we´re punished for it"...Wow.Just wow. I´m literally speechless from your short sighted view here. It´s ONE thing to sleep with an animal you love, but it´s a completely different thing to turn your sexual adventures into fame or monetary gains. There´s more ethically questionable issues in porn making than just the possibility to get thrown in jail for distribution of illegal porn. But why am I surprised? The antis may not be so wrong when they say we zoos are self centered and all we´re really concerned about is us and not the animal in the slightest. On one hand, all the zoos don´t hesitate to point out the exploitation of animals in commercial breeding farms, but on the other hand, porn is not a problem? Although it´s the SAME fucking exploitative impetus behind the entire porn making? And how do you explain what even fucking ZETA states on their homepage: "Animal porn is mainly made for bored "normal" individuals in search for yet another unusual kick, not for real zoophiles? Apologetic for the AP industry...
A propos animal porn: Illegal "zoophilia" seems to get rid of the professional animal porn industry, an industry I hope we all agree on their lack of concern for the animal´s wellbeing. Where does all the "pro" porn come from? I´ll tell you: from nations in which sex with animals ISN`T punished. Demanding "legal" zoophilia will definitely encourage some assholes to try and make some happy buck out of it for sure, ´cause history has proven this to be a correct assumption. "Legal" zoophilia will help the assholes the most. How "zoophile" is it for you to "buy" your personal "freedom" to talk about your carnal desires with the lives and wellbeing of those animals used for commercial porn production? Zoophilia is about humans first, right? /s
"People have to put their fake mask on..." Yeah. So what? Earth to WarCanine: We ALL have to wear "masks" in public, regardless of our sexual orientation. Reality TV may have distorted your vision, but belive me, this "problem" of wearing a mask is NOT exclusively reserved for animal fuckers. It´s called social behavior. Wearing certain masks is the glue of societies, man. Without these masks, life would be utter chaos.
Look, man...I understand your juvenile impetus, I understand where you´re coming from. But with the decades of experience living as a zoophile amidst the "normals", always in open sight, I can only say that your perspective on the problem of "zoophilia in the public eye" may be somehow chivalrous, but defintiely not very smart...especially not in an era of returning conservatism, autocratic dictators on the rise and the return of the crusade mentality in many religious folks. This isn´t a "waiting game", this is basic survival. Do you know Tenchu? Splinter Cell? The Metal Gear Solid Series? These stealth games can teach us a very valuable lesson...it´s NOT about building up superior strength to win an open battle, it´s about the right timing, analysing situations correctly, identifying possible advantages...and then, striking with all you have when the right situation arises. When a small group of poorly armed individuals are trying to resist a huge army, outnumbering and outgunning the resistors by a 1: 1 mil ratio, open battle is for the imbeciles. Guerrilla tactics is the key, the ONLY key that eventually can lead to success. History teaches you that. Quick strikes and even quicker retreat before the backup troops can engage in the battle...if you call this a "waiting game", well, man, just go to your local town hall and start yelling that you finger your bitches´vagina and you think it should be legal and see where it takes you. We don´t need Ramboesque fools, we need dedicated guerrilleros ,with patience, with enough wits to survive, with enough foresight and introspection to be ahead of the opposing force at least two steps at all time.Not morons yelling "Leeroy Jenkinsssss" while running into their doom...
"Humans will never change"...well, that´s your view. I, on the contrary, see how much the 80s, the time in which I grew up, is different from today. That´s just 35 years and I can assure you that you´d be utterly surprised by how different these 80s folks are from today´s average Joe. Also, please take note that society´s attitude towards more..uhm, unconventional sexual attractions fluctuates. It´s basically like a swinging pendulum, back and forth. The 70s were an era of practically limitless sexuality, even pedophilia was something that hasen´t been dismissed from discussion categorically. Then, the incredibly restrictive 80s, with the Yuppies, with AIDS and returning conservatism followed; that era was followed by the rather orgiastic 90s, with homosexuality being perfectly acceptable for a majority of normal people. Hell, when I was attending the first two or three love parades, people were fucking openly in broad daylight to the rhythm of the music. Not to say that I was buzzed by that public display of monkey sex, but that surely gives an impression of the decade I´m talking about.
To abbreviate it: attitudes fluctuate; in eras and areas. Just let all those neocons ruin their countries and societies, like they always do, like they did in the 60s, what culminated in the ´68/´69 "summer of love". Do yourself a favour and study Eastern philosophy..the Yin-Yang symbol especially. Worse is better sometimes...only when the laws get more and more intrusive, when authorities overdo it with their control mechanisms, only then it won´t be just some random animal fuckers demanding a complete readjustment of how we live together from scratch. You all shit your pants because of laws that ,objectively seen, are completely ineffective when we zoos focus on keeping our privacy. The louder you demand "legal zoophilia" now, the more severe the authorities will prosecute all of us...and you might think we´re already at the peak of prosecution , but I can only say you all should brace yourselves for the near future, ´cause you ain´t seen shit yet. Arapio and his goons , just an extreme for now...but what if the government decides to take Arapio as an example for the near future? Do you want to deliver them all the reasons for untilising their existing spy apparatus, PRISM and such?
There are only two types of guerrilleros, impatient ones and those who are alive.
If you´re fascinated with the "Thanatos" aspect of life and are seeking the "honorable demise" in battle with a superior force, I cannot help you...I´m more interested in "Eros" and "Agape" aspects and do anything to be there for horses first and foremost instead of the so called "zoophile community". For a real zoophile, animals ALWAYS come first, even if that means living his entire life under the radar of the public and authorities. I want to improve the life of the horses, of the animals in general....not my own life or that of any random "zoophile" primarily.If my or your life improves, that´s a nice side effect, but nothing else.
What this community is suffering from is the illusion of authority´s omnipotence and also from the illusion of our own´s impotence.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-02 13:28:19
"We cannot talk about zoophilia"....posting in a public forum constantly talking about zoophilia. Uh-huh...
Yes, only on the internet. But even on the internet we have to hide ourselves. There's tons of things we can't share because that would make it easy for them.
Of course, very funny since I'm on an alt account. (Because of people irl. Funny, huh?) Again, I have to put that mask on again, even online. It's unnecessary and annoying as fuck. I'm forced into doing this because otherwise I will be unfairly punished.
And what do you say to those zoophiles who need help with their zoophilia?
Zoophiles have a high chance of having mental issues and of course zoophilia comes with certain hurdles, and sometimes you need someone else to help you with these, especially when they're not exactly mentally healthy.
Not everybody knows that this exists. Even then, it's not a solution...
"We do suffer from these laws"...and how exactly do you suffer? Please name one, just ONE friggin´ case where a genuine zoo NOT involved in pornmaking or fencehopping is suffering REAL consequences. Those who are indeed "suffering" are those who cannot keep off the public´s eye...keep it private and no suffering will ever occur.
I think that suffering might be a bit too big of a word for this, but you know what I mean. I don't know what else to call it.
How am I ''suffering?'' I already told you, I need to keep silent.
Nobody likes to keep silent. You told your sister and your mother about your zoophilia iirc. If so, why did you? What's the point?
Look, I'm not going outside and tell people. But I should at least have the RIGHT to talk about it or not be afraid to post/say anything that will make me look suspicious.
Also, what makes you think fencehoppers and porn makers aren't ''genuine zoos?''
Both of such people can love an animal as much as non-porn makers / non-fencehoppers.
Oh, and many people don't keep their things private, yet they aren't punished for it.
"Many zoos live in fear.Every day." Whose fault is it when certain people, mostly those with no practical experience, constantly shit their pants because they see ghosts? Life IS danger, learn to live with risks, learn how to deal with risks, learn to correctly avoid risks. It´s really as simple as that. Your pov is just bogus...or, as AB has put it in another thread: "Hell, the arrests for bestiality are already in the two digit range....they´re coming at me tomorrow for sure." Learn to manage your irrational fears rather than trying to impose your twisted perceptions onto society. It isn´t as dangerous as most of you like to portray it.
The one responsible for these laws is the one to blame for these fears. Without them, there would be no fear.
As I keep saying every time: It's unfair.
I have learned to live with risks. But you know what kind of risks? Risks that everyone has and are for that reason fair.
Not risks because humans are cancerous and toxic and force me to live how they want to, especially if it's unnecessary and can be undone.
BTW: Having the "freedom" to talk about it is exactly what has taken over in all the "zoo forums"; it´s apparently NOT being able to live a zoo life anymore, it´s about rubbing it into every random bloke´s face without having to fear consequences or repercussions, right? See my Schopenhauer quote from my earlier post....blah,blah,blah, yadda,yadda,yadda... My point: LIVING a zoo life isn´t having effects on society when done in privacy. But TALKING about it is definitely having effects on privacy, just take a look at BF and how many openly admit that this "freedom" of easily accessible animal porn and the filter bubble that´s erected in such forums is what "got them hooked". Talking about zoophilia in public (yes, the internet also counts as public) IS detrimental to society as a whole.
It's not about ''rubbing it anyone's face'' it's about freedom and equal rights as human fuckers.
I hate repeating the same thing over again. So basically: Everything I said before in this post.
"And what are zoos supposed to do who live in more public spaces?" Are you friggin´ kidding me? I lived with my mare in open sight for all the other horseowners and visitors of my riding club. Yet I´m still not in jail. How´s that possible? Well, read my stuff and you might can a small glimpse of an idea what the REAL issues are the people have with "us" zoophiles...
Iirc you claimed that people were suspicious of you with your mare. The riding club and that one Dutch family?
So how did those stories of yours go again? People thought you were a zoophile and people just accepted it because you're good for her?
Hey, that story is also familiar in my life! So many people suspect me of being a zoophile.
There's many reasons for that, but a few of them is that people see I act ''weird'' around her and because I put her above everything.
But it doesn't matter people haven't reported us yet, we are supposed to stop this from happening itfp according to you, right?
Some day it'll go wrong. Some day it will...
"Today, uploading a video of yourself shagging an animal is dumb.But only because we´re punished for it"...Wow.Just wow. I´m literally speechless from your short sighted view here. It´s ONE thing to sleep with an animal you love, but it´s a completely different thing to turn your sexual adventures into fame or monetary gains. There´s more ethically questionable issues in porn making than just the possibility to get thrown in jail for distribution of illegal porn. But why am I surprised? The antis may not be so wrong when they say we zoos are self centered and all we´re really concerned about is us and not the animal in the slightest.
So can you please tell me what's actually wrong with animal porn?
If it's all consensual, the animal is not being used a sex toy, no sexual training done and both enjoy it there is no problem at all.
I know there's loads of animal porn out there where that's not true, but that doesn't prove anything.
What exactly is wrong by gaining money with this?
I don't want to upload porn of myself ever if I even could, but if I did I'd spend the money I gained on her.
And even if I didn't, it wouldn't be wrong as I'm just taking the best out of anything. It doesn't make a difference except for that fact I'd be getting money.
Wow, big deal.
And how do you explain what even fucking ZETA states on their homepage: "Animal porn is mainly made for bored "normal" individuals in search for yet another unusual kick, not for real zoophiles?
So what if that's true?
It's not made specifically for me, but I can use it. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Sorry that I don't have a sexual outlet?
Illegal "zoophilia" seems to get rid of the professional animal porn industry, an industry I hope we all agree on their lack of concern for the animal´s wellbeing. Where does all the "pro" porn come from? I´ll tell you: from nations in which sex with animals ISN`T punished. Demanding "legal" zoophilia will definitely encourage some assholes to try and make some happy buck out of it for sure, ´cause history has proven this to be a correct assumption. "Legal" zoophilia will help the assholes the most. How "zoophile" is it for you to "buy" your personal "freedom" to talk about your carnal desires with the lives and wellbeing of those animals used for commercial porn production?
Well, you changed my mind on this. A quick solution would be to make only porn illegal.
Although, I still think it would be sick since innocent people can suffer from it.
"People have to put their fake mask on..." Yeah. So what? Earth to WarCanine: We ALL have to wear "masks" in public, regardless of our sexual orientation. Reality TV may have distorted your vision, but belive me, this "problem" of wearing a mask is NOT exclusively reserved for animal fuckers. It´s called social behavior. Wearing certain masks is the glue of societies, man.
Except we wear this mask because of unfair opinions of people.
How many times do I have to repeat that it's unfair?
Damn, if we were in charge of a country nobody could talk about sex at all then because you're supposed to keep it private. Right? Right?
And still, I don't wear that much masks. I don't really have anything to hide except my zoo life because humanity is still a failure.
Look, man...I understand your juvenile impetus, I understand where you´re coming from... snip ...Not morons yelling "Leeroy Jenkinsssss" while running into their doom...
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell here. I don't do anything to help zoophilia in the first place and never will.
I don't give a shit about any tactic, because I know it's less than useless. It's as useless as those freaks talking to their big invisible imaginary friend and expecting to end up in a paradise.
I'd rather stand back and watch zoos waste their time. Sometimes it hurts to see, sometimes it's amusing.
For a real zoophile, animals ALWAYS come first, even if that means living his entire life under the radar of the public and authorities. I want to improve the life of the horses, of the animals in general....not my own life or that of any random "zoophile" primarily.If my or your life improves, that´s a nice side effect, but nothing else.
...What? What does that have to do with this?
So because my bitch is more important than anything, I shouldn't give a shit what happens to me?
I want to live a fair life and have equal rights and that doesn't mean she doesn't come first. I just want to be able to improve my life.
With the same logic, I shouldn't do anything which doesn't profit her because she always comes first.
And I know that if a zoos' life improves, the life of their animal partner also improves, too.
And by the way...
do anything to be there for horses
omgg specisism u arent a zophil1!!1
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-05-02 22:40:41
Some things I want to add:
(30-30) - You all shit your pants because of laws that, objectively seen, are completely ineffective when we zoos focus on keeping our privacy. The louder you demand "legal zoophilia" now, the more severe the authorities will prosecute all of us
Firstly, zoos can get "outed" or exposed even if they do everything they can to remain private. (For example, a suspicious veterinarian). Privacy alone is not foolproof. Second, authorities are already cracking down on zoo, regardless of how vocal zoos are. Third, laws vary by jurisdiction and country, and some laws (such as those in the United States) are particularly severe: for example, in Oregon it is a felony and sex offender registry offense (up to 5 years in prison and $125,000 fine), while in Michigan one can be put in prison for the rest of their lives.
I'm forced into doing this because otherwise I will be unfairly punished... As I keep saying every time: It's unfair.
Anti-zoo laws are unfair -- they discriminate against zoos, oppress them, force them to stay in the closet, allow the government to steal their animals, give preferential treatment to those who have sex with humans, etc. Zoos do suffer under these laws, because of the mentioned reasons, and because they enable stigma and public shaming for those who are caught, as well as ruining people's lives (and ruining their animal's lives). The question is, what can be done to eliminate the anti-zoo laws, because the anti-zoos are so powerful, and no zoo is willing to go public to try and oppose them (due to the risk).
I want to live a fair life and have equal rights
One of the reasons anti-zoo laws are wrong is because they unjustly take away a zoo's rights, and create inequalities/hypocrisies in the law (such as allowing artificial insemination, but condemning less harmful sex with animals). Zoos are wrongfully labeled as "criminals" for being who they are.
I don't give a shit about any tactic, because I know it's less than useless.
Isn't that defeatism? So you see no hope for zoo ever becoming accepted/tolerated?
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-02 22:58:15
Isn't that defeatism? So you see no hope for zoo ever becoming accepted/tolerated?
That is indeed defeatism.
I already have little to no hope for humanity left to begin with.
The way antis are treating us and how outnumbered we are, I'm going to say no. I've seen enough people say it should be illegal because it's disgusting to them.
All the logic is thrown out of the window, except their own poppycock logic.
Antis don't need to make sense, they're bigger in numbers and will stay that way.
And of course, how humans are in general. I keep saying it: Religion.
I can't look at someone who believes in a mainstream religion and think they've got some kind of intelligence in there. I just can't.
And not to mention that such religions say bestiality is bad and all...
I see people saying we should give this time.
But, for how long?
I couldn't care less if this happens after I become 40 years old or when I'm dead.
And you know, I've become quite careless of what people think of us. I know I don't hurt her.
What I'd really like changed is my freedom.
I shouldn't be afraid to say "I am not attracted to humans."
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-04 11:32:43
"I´ve become quite careless of what people think of us. I know I don´t hurt her". Finally you see the light, mate. Now you only need to get rid of this idea that , in order to reach peace of mind, you need to tell other people what you are and are not attracted to....and then, you made it through. Welcome to the other side.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-04 11:53:32
I've changed my mind on what others think of us longer ago.
I still care, just not much. Especially compared to this shit.
People's opinions don't affect me, but those laws and my lack of freedom do.
I also have opinions that human sex is extremely fucking disgusting, but that's not as if I banned people from talking about it and ruining their lives if they did.
It's actions versus opinions.
The idea that it's unfair will never change in me. And I will never stand for it. Innocent animals and humans are stolen from eachother and their lives ruined.
And it has directly affected my life because of many reasons and it greatly interferes with our relationship.
So I'd rather not go to "the other side" and accept that I'm being treated as a slave or a child who's not allowed to talk.
Whatever you're doing, it's not working because I'm only realizing how I hate such humans more and more sometimes.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-05 08:16:16
Okay, I see...you´re still too much of a human...
And don´t you mistake independence from this "zoo drama" for acceptance...nobody cares for your sexuality unless you´re making them care for it..."Loquere argentum, sed tacere aurum est"
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-09 13:48:39
That's funny. I'm pretty sure nobody cared about the anti-sex opinions until they made us care by making it the law.
Perhaps I wouldn't look like a psychopath and maybe I wouldn't want to cut their ears off if I didn't care about the law.
If we should all be like you, then people should take care to make sure that nobody else cares. I can't stop caring until they die, their whole family dies or the law dies.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-09 14:20:51
In response to 3030...It's ironic, funny. I'm pretty sure nobody cared about the anti-animal sex opinions until they made us care by making it the law.
Perhaps I wouldn't sound like a psychopath and maybe I wouldn't feel the need to cut their ears off if I didn't care about the law.
If we should all not care, then people should take care to make sure that nobody else cares. Maybe that's what societies useless drugs were for.
It sucks actually. I can't stop caring until those people die, their whole family dies or the law dies. There's nothing to take my divert my attention away from that anymore.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-03 03:51:58
A suspicious veterinarian? Ridiculous. Just tell me ONE friggin´case in which only a suspicious vet sent a "zoophile" in jail. You´re always insisting on "countless zoos are thrown in jail unfairly".....if you´re such an expert on this, maybe you can provide us with hard numbers instead of that "countless" , "many" and "lots of" bullshit.
Seriously, name just ONE damn case in which the "zoo" hasn´t actively participated in his/her own exposure and I´ll be silent about this from now on...come on, dude, bring it...
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-03 13:22:02
We don't hear enough about the cruelty, discrimination, and violence towards zoophiles because people are trying to maintain their cover up of the abuse. As you can see, they have no problem blaming the zoophiles and telling them there's nothing they can do.
It's the same thing as Holocaust Denial.
More fakes around here claiming "Nothing goes on. Zoos aren't being snuffed out and exterminated," trying to drown out the fact that Yes these things are happening
Clearly, if people do not care that zoophiles are being treated this way, tortured, losing their lives... then how is remaining peaceful going to solve anything?
The elephants in Africa are very peaceful, but that isn't stopping the Anti-Zoo brigade from gutting them too.
Bottom line, these people are out to kill us and the Law is the only way they can look like heroes doing it.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-04 11:26:16
OMG, the drama queen is at it again...
I won´t honour this rubbish of yours with an answer but I´m really curious which "zoophiles" are "tortured, losing their lives"....can you come up with hard facts instead of your phantasmagorical drama?
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-04 13:15:23
Yes I have. It's just...my facts are much too hard for you. Of course, "you must learn to walk before you can run."
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-05 08:12:19
My dick surely is harder than your fake facts....get lost, kid!
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-05 12:41:33
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-06-04 12:03:36
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-06-04 12:13:41
[deleted]
Andrew-R 1 point on 2017-05-08 01:22:59
Wearing certain masks is the glue of societies, man. Without these masks, life would be utter chaos.
Hm, can you explain this line of your thinking a bit more? Like... I found being consistent actually easier for me internally, because I don't need to remember ever-increasing amount of special cases when I somewhat supposed to behave / talk very differently from what I really think ... Sure, some attempt at making myself more understanable exist in me, and I try to be adaptive, in how I talk...But...it really interesting to see why you think about society, social life and chaos ..in this specific relations to each other (I hope I will return to this tab in less than 10 days...).
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-05-01 17:57:10
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. We aren't really stuck, you just want us to be.
Anyways...Serial killers are the means to the Anti-zoos envisioned end. It wasn't my idea. Anti-Zoos are the ones who wanted zoophiles to be criminals, so it's not surprising if the Anti-Zoos we're home growing their own terrorists from zoophiles.
Like Mr. Mitt Romney said.. "If they want more, why don't they just make it?"
duckzducks 1 point on 2017-05-02 11:08:22
This is ridiculous writing - the article states:
Report of a law,
report of a law,
report of something stepdaughter/technicality,
HERE COMES THE AUTHORS ADDITION TO THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE: It's all horrific, let's chop off their heads.
/r/zoophilia archive
TL;DR: Sex with animals happens a lot, like donkey fucking in Colombia. Scandinavian countries recently banned it because they were worried about perverted Viking vacations. Then in Canada, some guy got off on a technicality because their criminal law defined buggery to include only penetration, and apparently the whole government failed to pass a broader bestiality ban. That's unacceptable, and these people need to spend at least two years in jail, get counseling, and be banned from owning animals, for reasons.
Same bullshit, different day. I don't know why we keep posting these things here. It's not like we aren't aware of the arguments they try to make, or like we can combat them somehow, or not realize there is a massive amount of people who don't like us or understand us. I mean, isn't that part of the reason this place exists? To have community in place of facing all of that shit by oneself?
Because a daily dose of idiocy keeps us alive.
I agree, though. Because y'know, this is actually an overdose.
On the other hand, ignoring the anti-zoo shit altogether might lead to complacency. Ideally, there should be a balance between good/bad things, but perhaps bad things show up more often because they are more common. There used to be a lot of pro-zoo essays and articles (up to around 2009 and 2010), but now it seems to all be anti (in the media/press). The people who were thinking of zoo in terms of tolerance and "sexual orientation" have largely been replaced by people thinking of it in terms of "criminalizing" it.
It's true that there appears to be no one combating the antis -- for example, in recent discussions on the current anti-zoo bill in Nevada, nobody spoke in opposition to it.
Nobody spoke against the laws because they're expecting us to pay them to speak.
They don't actually care about any morality concerning the act of sex with animals, they're just doing it for their own profit or pleasure of hurting people. They want us to pay them lots and lots of money before taking our side, because it's the only thing better than watching innocent people behind bars.
These laws are making the country feel like a wasteland future run by robots with no human emotion or feelings, mentally ill animal cultists, and a hoard of other despotic monsters.
They'll never speak in opposition, because the truth is, peer pressure is a hell of a drug and most everyone thinks we are monsters. Look at all the work just gay people have had to go through just to get to where they are now and that's a pretty accepted non-hetero orientation and gay people outnumber zoos by a ton, as well as them STILL not having equal rights everywhere. We, we are at the bottom of the food chain as far as acceptance goes, people view us in the same line as child molesters.
And of course we hear less positivity for our side, because now that laws have been popping up left and right, with pretty harsh punishments as well as vaguely worded interpretation that could be twisted to incarcerate and punish a zoo or zoo sympathizer, nevermind that we as a community are pretty divided and unorganized, we are failing to get a leg up in this race for rights and recognition. Even if we were somehow united, we don't have much faith that our numbers are large enough to make any difference.
We already are complacent, because none of us want to suffer the consequences of standing up. So we sit back, try to live our lives as secretly as possible and hope we live to see the end of our days without having a target painted on our backs or the backs of those we care about most.
Were you summarizing the author's points? Or did you mean "these people think zoos need to spend..."
The entirety was a summary. My own view is that we should legalize sex with animals and simultaneously strengthen animal cruelty laws and enforcement measures to prevent the sorts of abuse that actually do appear to be linked to violent crimes toward humans.
I liked how this brought attention to the horrible things that people do. Prayer in church happens too, so we must put God first and prevent those people from continuing their sick practice.
Some religious people commit violent crimes in the name of their religion, like killing sinners and bombing buildings. Therefore, all religious practice is inherently harmful and should be outlawed, regardless of its consequences in individual cases. That is the parallel argument here.
Yes.
Unfortunately there is this mainstream religion called "The Law" which revolves around a book...because no other religion would allow trash "Science" as the inspiration for feeding a deluded habit of writing new scary passages to their books, stigmatizing and punishing about all sorts of things. They just write whatever they want, about whoever they want, to their books with no regard for the original creator or the time period in which it was created. Language has changed and interpretations aren't always accurate.
So yes... following old religion is inherently harmful. People are all following the storybooks of ancestors as if they were the truth - and the psychopathic death notebook, "The Law", of the demented modern people and leaders of voice.
Why can't I punch people trough the screen? People are getting crazier and crazier...
It makes me sick people think we deserve that, I hope it ever backfires to them some day reaaaal bad... I swear...
I agree; punishing zoos with harsh penalties will accomplish nothing -- it will only make their lives miserable and the lives of their animals miserable. Doing this is not "protecting" animals. Punishing zoos by jailing them, stealing their animals and forbidding them from owning animals in the future is a form of oppression, and is wrong. There should not be "punishment" to begin with, because it shouldn't be a "crime" to begin with.
[deleted]
I was born in the wrong culture
Seems a bit too harsh
Uh...
Joke's on them. I could never own an animal anyway.
Don't get too comfortable not having animals. Once they find out people are comfortable with not owning animals they'll just find something else to criminalize Figure they're treating our lives like a hostage trade. They'll let us have healthcare and marijuana if we give up our "safe sex." If we don't have animals or sex with animals, they'll just find another hole to rape us in.
Of course, some people wouldnt have jobs if every harmless action was legalized. Yet, I do not care if those people have jobs or not because any person who would support the laws criminalizing harmless action including the act sex with animals... should have their own families starved and buried in front of them.
I originally come from the an area where that rite happens.
Don't get so fooled, sex might be ok but love is quite forbidden; plus this is only in quite rural areas, and if it happens that it's not your rite and they get to know that you are an actual zoophile, and specially if you are into males, you are in fucking trouble, you'd rather have problems with police, several times; I wouldn't want to be burned alive. Even when getting caught is harder because even you can admit it's just you trying to get release, which only works as long as you are male and it's a female in question, and only in specific rural towns, let it happen several times and you are screwed. Simply said, good for occasional bestialists, bad for zoos.
I have found Europe to be way safer from zoos than Colombia. Don't be a fool.
As usual, this article is an anti-zoo discussing zoo within the context of "criminality". People ought to stop thinking of zoos in terms of "crime", and instead think of it as a human condition which should be decriminalized.
I wish there were more articles made by people who want to decriminalize it and make it more acceptable, but I guess the anti articles are more common.
This is a quote, from the article, that I didn't like:
Notice the bias of the author when sex with animals is called "horrifying". Also, the suggested advice is exactly not what should happen: zoos should not be put on some zoo "registry", zoos should not be imprisoned, and they don't need "psychiatric help" just because they're zoo. It is also wrong to prevent a zoo from owning animals.
Instead of trying to understand zoos, the author has a "throw them in jail" attitude, along with the flawed idea that they would be "protecting" animals by doing that.
By the way, despite what the author said about Colombia, sex with animals was banned in Colombia 2 years ago.
It can be argued that you have a bias as well, and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I'd say everyone here has a bias in favor of legalization, with a number of exceptions.
True, but as a counterargument to that, I'd argue we're more experienced with the actual moral issues with zoophilia and the validity of the claims made against it than most of the people passing these anti-bestiality laws.
To counter that still, there exist criminologists and other researchers that devote decades of work into investigating bestiality and animal attraction, yet are themselves still against it.
They aren't devoting anything to any research. They're being paid to do it. That means they're taking time, taking bribes, and not doing the job right so it can last longer. They're screwing up our lives, freedoms and stealing our time so they can get paid and recognized for theirs.
That's years of research, wasted time and money that shouldn't have ever be proposed.
Or they're just interested in the topic in a context of criminology.
[deleted]
Those people have confirmation bias; that is, seeing what they want to see in their research (because they already have an anti-zoo prejudice to begin with).
But confirmation bias is an interpretation bias. The numbers they have support their beliefs on an objective basis, regardless of whether they are accurate.
Their interpretation of the data they look at is flawed (correlation/causation error), leading to wrong conclusions.
But the entire basis of science is in observed correlations. We have to assume causation or we'll get nothing done.
So when an anti-zoo says "studies say zoos are likely to be violent criminals" -- you agree with that? (Because I don't).
Not an issue of agreeing with it, just that the numbers as they are now, in the studies which they cite, do support their claims.
You do realize the only study which supports that claim at the moment was conducted on a group of convicted sex offenders?
I don't think that's enough evidence to make ANY claims regarding the population at large.
1, 2, 3, 4.
And some studies I couldn't get links for.
Hensley C, Tallichet SE, Dutkiewicz EL. Recurrent childhood animal cruelty: Is there a relationship to adult recurrent interpersonal violence? Criminal Justice Review. 2009;34:248–257.
Merz-Perez L, Heide KM, Silverman IJ. Childhood cruelty to animals and subsequent violence against humans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2001;45:556–573.
That's from about 12 minutes of looking. I tried to avoid lit reviews or anything that relied on studies in the list already. Hopefully the two researchers that drop by pull through later, though.
The problem is that many of those citing these studies assume that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty", which isn't true.
They use assessments outside of bestiality to identify cruelty and interpersonal violence, so it doesn't really matter.
So, therefore, these studies cannot be used as a justification to condemn zoos and/or all sex with animals.
No, your problem doesn't matter because they're using other identifiers to form their analysis and conclusions.
Well, those people incarcerated for "zoophilia" must be victim to a miraculous and mystical transformation; when they´re NOT in jail, all those laws are "unjust" and throw totally "normal" and "harmless" "zoophiles" into jail. But when the very same folks are IN JAIL and checked by real scientists, they suddenly become "non representatives" of "zoophilia" because all their negative and bad traits suddenly show.
I believe it´s totally futile to discuss with Skg...and people who share his way of selective thinking. You´ll never make people like him rethink their entire approach, you´ll never get ´em to evaluate studies correctly. Sorry to say, but I cannot take anyone who still believes in the "studies" conducted by Miletski et al. , but refuses to believe in a vast pool of studies that are BACKING their findings with actual proof seriously. Miletski , Nasswetter and all the other "zoo iconic" "researchers" never validated anything they´ve been told by the "zoophiles" they interviewed. Anyone can claim how "loving and caring" their "zoo relationship" is....regardless of what actually happens in real life. The "Negative" studies always back up their findings with valid proof....
Why are "totally harmless zoophiles" threatened by the "unjust" law representatives for the harmlessness of zoophilia, but when incarcerated and analysed by actual scientists , they suddenly undergo this mystical transformation of "when they´re in jail, they´re not representative of zoophilia anymore because they´re in jail"?
Fact is: the reasons to engage in sex with animals are manifold. From shyness with humans that makes you "testcopulate" animals as a preparation for "real" human contacts" to full blown objectification, egocenteredness and even sadistic traits (full control over the desired sex object) , you can find everything in between in "zoophiles". And if you take a quick look in the biggest "zoophile" site (BF), you´ll see exactly how the negative studies aren´t as flawed as people like Skg... want to make you think.
Whoever treats zoophiles and "zoophiles" as a homogenic group of poeple and bases his/her assumptions (´cause that´s what we ALL rely on, nobody knows for sure if sex with animals isn´t detrimental for them) on that flawed premise is definitely not making a scientifically valid point here. I´m not saying that sex with animals per se and 100% sure is detrimental for the animals, but I´m also not saying that it isn´t. I´ve met so many "bona fide zoos" in all these years I´m active online ...and most of them have shown some very disturbing traits sooner or later. Hate for humans, aggression, self fooling, other mental problems....you pick one out of any psycho-book and you can be sure it won´t take long to find some "zoophile" suffering from it.
Until there´s a reliable UHAT (universal human animal translator), no study, neither a positive nor a negative, has any value...regarding the animal factor in the equation. But the negative studies hold value insofar as they analyse the actual "zoophilic" person. As a valuation of the basic character of the incarcerated "zoophile", they hold value....
Study #1 is new to me, thanks. I'll concede there.
Study #2 is the study that most pull from, as mentioned, conducted on inmates.
Study #3 is generic animal cruelty and not quite related to generic bestiality which may or may not involve cruelty. I'm dismissing it as such.
Study #4 I suspect draws from study #2, but as it's only a an abstract I can't say. The abstract seems to go over existing laws and will probably reference the same #2 study, but it hides behind a paywall so I can't confirm.
I appreciate you bringing #1 to my attention, but that's one isolated case. (I don't mean that in a dismissive context: It's literally one isolated individual case study from what I can see.) I still stand by my claim: The majority of these studies seem to be based on the same flawed study applied inappropriately, study #2.
There are also those two other studies, which you can probably scihub.
I don't think the 3 I posted is what I meant to post, but eh. Its late.
4 is a lit review drawing from a couple dozen studies, which I'm copying and pasting from their bibliography(pardon any formatting errors, I'm doing this before bed and want to finish up asap) Lit reviews aren't my favorite to cite, but they have a good amount of influence and are useful for what they are.
Abel, G. (2008). What can 44,000 men and 12,000 boys with sexual behavior problems teach us about preventing sexual abuse? Paper presented at the annual training conference of the California coalition on sexual offending, San Francisco, California. Abel, G., Becker, J. V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittelman, M., & Rouleau, J. L. (1988). Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16(2), 153–168. Ackerson, L., & Highlander, M. (1928). The relation of enuresis to intelligence, conduct and personality problems and other factors. The Psychology Clinic, 17, 119–127. Aggrawal, A. (2011). A new classification of zoophilia. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18(2), 73–78. American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-III-R (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association. Animal Legal Defense Fund (2014). Animal protection laws of the United States of America & Canada, 9th ed. Animals & Society Institute (2014). The AniCare approach: Interrupting the cycle of violence. (Ann Arbor, MI). Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. R. (1999). The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(9), 963–976. California Penal Code (2014). §597: Cruelty to animals. Climent, C. E., & Ervin, F. R. (1972). Historical data in the evaluation of violent subjects. A hypothesis generating study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27(5), 621–624. Cole, L. T. (1971). Dog fucker (Dogarama). Favre, D., & Tsang, V. (1993). The development of the anti-cruelty laws during the 1800s. Detroit College of Law review. Felthous, A. R. (1980). Aggression against cats, dogs and people. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10(3), 169–177. Felthous, A. R., & Bernard, H. (1979). Enuresis, firesetting, and cruelty to animals: The significance of two thirds of this triad. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 24(1), 240–246. Felthous, A. R., & Kellert, S. R. (1987). Childhood cruelty to animals and later aggression against people: A review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(6), 710–717. Fleming, W. M., Jory, B., & Burton, D. L. (2002). Characteristics of juvenile offenders admitting to sexual activity with nonhuman animals. Society and Animals, 10(1), 31–45. Gleyzer, R., Felthous, A. R., & Holzer, C. E. (2002). Animal cruelty and psychiatric disorders. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 30(2), 257–265. Hellman, D. S., & Blackman, N. (1966). Enuresis, firesetting and cruelty to animals: A triad predictive of adult crime. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122(12), 1431–1435. Henderson, B. B., Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2011). Childhood animal cruelty methods and their link to adult interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(11), 2211–2227. Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2004). Exploring the link between recurrent acts of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty and subsequent violent crime. Criminal Justice Review, 29(2), 304–316. Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2008). The effect of inmates' self-reported childhood and adolescent animal cruelty: Motivations on the number of convictions for adult violent interpersonal crimes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(2), 175–184. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S. E., & Dutkiewicz, E. L. (2010). Childhood bestiality: A potential precursor to adult interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 557–567. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S. E., & Singer, S. D. (2006). Exploring the possible link between childhood and adolescent bestiality and interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(7), 910–923. Holoyda, B., & Newman, W. (2014). Zoophilia and the law: Legal responses to a rare paraphilia. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(4), 412–420. Ibrahim, D. (2006). The anticruelty statute: A study in animal welfare. Journal of Animal Law & Ethics, 175–204. Kellaher, D. C. (2014). Sexual behavior and autism spectrum disorders: An update and discussion. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17, 25. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders. Laws, D. R., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2008). Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Macdonald, J. M. (1963). The threat to kill. American Journal of Psychiatry, 120(2), 125–130. Macdonald, J. M. (1967). Homicidal threats. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124(4), 475–482. McNeil, L., Osborne, J., & Pavia, P. (2005). The other Hollywood: The uncensored oral history of the porn film industry (1st ed.). New York: Regan Books. Mead, M. (1964). Cultural factors in the cause and prevention of pathological homicide. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 28, 11–22. Mehta, M. D. (2001). Pornography in Usenet: A study of 9800 randomly selected images. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(6), 695–703. Miletski, H. (1999). Bestiality–zoophilia: An exploratory study. The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. Miletski, H. (2001). Zoophilia: Implications for therapy. Journal of Sexual Education and Therapy, 26(2), 85–89. New York Revised Statutes (1866). 682.2. New York Revised Statutes (1867). 375.2–.9. Otto, S. K. (2005). State animal protection laws — The next generation. Animal Law, 11, 131–166
Overton, J. C., Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2012). Examining the relationship between childhood animal cruelty motives and recurrent adult violent crimes toward humans. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 899–915. Peretti, P. O., & Rowan, M. (1983). Zoophilia: Factors related to its maintained practice. Panminerva Medica, 25, 127–131. Ranger, R., & Fedoroff, P. (2014). Commentary: Zoophilia and the law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42(4), 421–426. Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1996). Murderers who rape and mutilate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(3), 273–287. Ryder, R. D. (1989). Animal revolution: Changing attitudes towards speciesism. Oxford: Blackwell. Tapia, F. (1971). Children who are cruel to animals. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 2(2), 70–77. Tapia, F., Jekel, J., & Dmoke, H. R. (1960). Enuresis: An emotional symptom. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 130, 61–66. Texas Penal Code (2007a). 42.092. Texas Penal Code (2007b). 42.09. The Vice Guide to Sex (2012). Asses of the Caribbean. Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., Terrell, K., & Howard, M. O. (2009). Correlates of cruelty to animals in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(15), 1213–1218. Vermont Laws (1846). Act 34. Wax, D. E., & Haddock, V. G. (1974). Enuresis, firesetting and animal cruelty in male adolescent delinquents: A triad predictive of violent behavior. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 2(1), 45–71. Wisch, R. F. (2010). Brief summary of state cruelty laws. (Retrieved July 2, 2015 from) https://www.animallaw.info/intro/state-anti-cruelty-laws Wright, J., & Hensley, C. (2003). From animal cruelty to serial murder: Applying the graduation hypothesis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(1), 71–88.
I'll concede as it wasn't my original point to say all zoo studies are misleading (my point was simply to watch out for selection bias, not that all zoo studies are misapplied this way) and you are obviously more well read on this than me. Not surprising, frankly, given I didn't even know about scihub... my college days are dated. ;)
You still may note in the citation list above, there is still a surprising amount of criminology and draws from criminal study groups. This is why you can't (generally speaking) apply it to the general population. That is my sole and only point.
Their claims are not supported, because as /u/OS2Oslov said, the sample selection is invalid (i.e. a group of incarcerated people), and their assumptions are wrong (such as their assumption that all sex with animals is "animal cruelty").
The existence of a tertiary assumption doesn't matter. Their investigations don't rely on bestiality to justify their assertions. The first one identified the death of an animal during intercourse, and a subsequent lack of emotional response in an otherwise not criminally active male. The second one found that sexual abuse and cruelty to nonhuman animals were correlated with interpersonal violence. These studies do have control groups. It's important when looking for a criminal correlation to actually use incarcerated individuals for your study. There's no use in figuring out criminal correlations in people that never run astray of the law.
Yes, but you know better than to assume all bestialists are incarcerated, or even that bestiality is a universal crime. It's not. That's a silly way to approach this when trying to applying to the general bestiality-practitioner population, as is often done.
The studies are still flawed because they look at specific cases of actual abuse, and then erroneously assume that ALL sex with animals is "cruel" and "abusive" -- this is not true. And in this case, because the "control group" is a group of atypical individuals (incarcerated individuals) it distorts the data. Most zoos are not violent to humans, and if one looks only at incarcerated individuals, one will come to incorrect conclusions.
In other words, the data they're getting is not being used properly, nor is it being obtained properly.
There is also the problem of people assuming that all sex with animals is "sexual abuse", which is incorrect. The issue is that sex with an animal is not abusive in and of itself, yet that notion is not recognized in these studies.
You didn't read them did you.
I know you've claimed to be exposed to research in the past, but I find your support of poor research methods and misuse of data to be a little strange, so maybe you can explain it further. Let me try to explain my viewpoint.
If I tried to understand something about social drinking of soft drinks and my population was limited to people convicted of hit-and-run DUIs after having rum-and-Cokes, my conclusions about the legal/ethical implications of drinking soft drinks will not be valid in the context of overall soft drink consumption, because I failed to make my population sufficiently independent from other factors when designing the study.
I agree that "the entire basis of science is in observed correlations" but this doesn't change the fact that some observations are more accurate than others. There is no mandate to move forward or "get something done" here. The closest we have to a mandate is, as a free society, to avoid imprisoning people for believing the world is round, at least until we know actual, material harm will come from that belief.
I state what is, not what should be, in cases like these. I don't recall supporting anything in recent history, frankly.
I think it's a little overblown just how poorly done people here seem to think the studies are, but the quality of the studies wasn't the focus. It's just the conclusions that the numbers supported.
I'm stating what is, too: Overwhelmingly biased studies are not valid. See the example above.
Much like taking a person with teeth rotting out of their mouth to a dentist and asking if that person has a cavity, at some point a fine-toothed analysis is no longer required to see that a problem exists.
It's not clear to me what you're arguing as "what is" but I can say that responses like "all studies have bias!" is not really the horse I'd be betting on, in such a discussion. :)
Focusing on conclusions instead of quality of data is something that results in witch trials. Which, not surprisingly, is more or less where we are right now.
And I would ask their opinion at the start of their research, and claim self-fullfilling prophecy is at play here, but even I will admit there are two sides to this coin.
And yet, the voices and opinions of zoos are never taken into consideration in legislative discussions (such as the recent ones in Nevada), because zoos are always absent. Whenever a state such as Nevada makes an unjust anti-zoo bill, there is never any opposition to it (because of the absence of zoos / zoo supporters), which is troubling.
When someone calls sex with animals "horrifying" (as the author of the article did), that is more than just bias -- it is malice.
Or they're stating a subjective truth. It's not a desire to do evil.
Emphasis on subjective.
The situation really no different than if the USA was invaded and occupied by foreign invaders. The invaders would take over and probably change our laws, providing excuses for them to kidnap and makes wives from our spouses, children and animals.
This is why the laws against sex with animals are bad. The people who supported these laws are no different than barbarian invaders, using their power change our way of life, to steal our family members (human or animal) and "adopting" them into slavery.
It's probably better to just drop all this talk and maim the hell out of anyone who decides they're going to join or support the animal sex witch hunting. The way things are going now, if we don't snuff them out theyre not going to stop until we're all dead and our real human children are choking on their dicks.
Yeah, that´s exactly what we need...a homicidal maniac promoting his extinction fantasies via an online zoo forum.... /s sigh
Fun fact: Germany illegalised bestiality in 2013. I slept with my mare before that date and I sleep with my mare after that date, so I know both from first hand experience...and as far as I am concerned, nothing has changed really. It was dangerous to be caught before the law went into effect in july 2013 and it is dangerous after the legal ban. The only thing that´s different: the "pot" has become bigger because the government raised it with the new law. So what? And nobody shall dare to pull out the usual "....but sooo many zoos are getting arrested these days!" bullshit. The vast majority of these people would equally run into legal trouble if there were no laws prohibiting interspecies sex because the necessary irresponsibility, the parallel dimension you have to drift into to get caught in flagranti and blaming others for it and the notorious "act now, think later" mentality would still be a major issue of these folks.
Nobody "takes zoophilia away" from me as authorities haven´t been able to take away cannabis from me. No authority has the power to dictate my life if I keep it private and hidden from the public.
What you, among many others in here, aren´t getting right: the zoophile community ´s current status is comparable to "has standed on an unknown and maybe very hostile island"....and you, among others, are fantasising about where your pool table will be located in your living room.....despite the fact you won´t live long enough to even start building the house in which the living room is because , before luxury, survival is fundamental. Misanalysing the situation in the way the loudmouths and mouthpieces, with you as their most prominent representant in here, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the community....we don´t need another Doug Spink.
I´m not a witch, I´m not "hunted down" because I fuckin´ keep my shit PRIVATE....basic survival instincts active here, mate! At least in Germany, you can only be condemned if there is valid proof of your "wrongdoings"...and if any "zoo" is dumb enough to put that proof out there by themselves (even when I´m considering your "...but there are other people blackmailing "zoos" with porn " as legit and not a bogus distraction tactic only applicable on a tiny fraction of "zoos"), he/she has to deal with the consequences. Shut your doors, draw the curtains, don´t let anyone you´re not trusting 1000% near ANY hard proof of your sexual "interspecies adventures" and you´re good. This shouldn´t be hard to understand nor should it be hard to support: cherish your privacy and watch your mouth. As Shopenhauer said: " All of our problems come from not being able to be alone"....think about what a respectable German grandmaster of philosophy said although he probably never heard of "zoophilia" all of his life...still, highly relevant for our problem, isn´t it?
Lots of nations have recently "banned" what many of us like to do....how can anybody ever think it would be a great idea to go for the full frontal confrontation treatment right now? How often do I have to say it that with our small numbers, with our desolate condition as a "community" (like a boat full of captains all claiming the steering wheel for themselves) and with our relatively little "mass appeal" as animal fuckers, open battle is definitely NOT the way to go and/or succeed? What´s the best way for a 10 y. o. to fight Wladimir Klitschko? Only NOT to fight fuckin´ Wladimir Klitschko, goddamn! But what a 10 y.o. CAN do is to use GUERRILLA TACTICS and seek situations where Klitschko´s strength is equalised by other factors: surprise, knowledge of territory, clever planning, using the 1 in a million chance. Why is it so hard to realise we´re NOT IN THE POSITION to demand ANYTHING from society at the moment?
Gosh, don´t you all realise how stuck we´re in this dead end? How unrealistic your "legalise it!" crap really is? And going on a "anti zoo" killing spree certainly will net us lots of sympathy and support.....from serial killers for sure.... sigh
Just because you don't suffer from it doesn't mean anyone doesn't suffer from it.
Or is it because you're the badass dank snowflake who doesn't get offended and is basically invincible?
If bestiality is ever legalized then that means we won't get arrested for it. There wouldn't be no ''can you prove the animal did give consent?'' because they chose to legalize it in the first place, some thought must have put behind it.
And that would break the whole ''innocent until proven guilty'' concept.
We do suffer from these laws.
We cannot talk about zoophilia in any way. That may not be a problem to you, but maybe to others.
Many zoos live in fear every day. Every. Day.
It doesn't even matter if a zoophile wants to talk about it or not, it's the freedom of it. Just the idea that we can't talk about it or our lives and our animal's lives are ruined forever is sickening.
Many zoos have problems and cannot talk about it because we aren't allowed to talk about anything zoo related.
What are they supposed to do? Just let their problems eat them away until they go absolutely crazy?
And what are zoos supposed to do who live with others or have their animals in more public spaces?
I get it. We shouldn't talk about it because it is a risk to us and our animals. But that's the thing: That's wrong.
Today, uploading videos of yourself shagging an animal is dumb. But only because we'll get punished for it.
It's sick that we have to obey to a set of rules and other's don't. It's a whole lot of trouble that should not happen.
Yet, they've done nothing wrong and are doing the same non-zoos do. It isn't really the zoophile's fault, more like fault of who's responsible for such laws.
People who have to hide their identities and claim they're normal. They have to put their ''fake'' mask on and pretend. All because otherwise their lives would be unfairly ruined...
Does that sound familiar to you? Right, it's fucked up.
Ah yes, the waiting game.
That time's when it's 60493, when we're all dead before 2100 even hit.
So when do you think that is, then?
At least zoos can start thinking about it or even try.
But I never will, because in my opinion that's useless: Humans will never change. People still believe in invisible sky people that have magic and created us, so that's an instant no for me.
The problem is that right now the trend has been massively towards criminalization. Here are some of the places that have banned sex with animals recently:
Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Florida, Alaska, Alabama, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Bolivia, Colombia, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Jalisco, Australian Capitol Territory, Brazil, Thailand
And yet, not once has there been a decriminalization or legalization of zoo anywhere in the world (on it's own merit -- not counting the repeal of "sodomy" laws)
That is a problem, and it's part of the reason these new laws keep getting created unopposed (the pro-zoos are silent, and in the closet. So only the anti-zoos are heard). It also means zoos can't express themselves freely. Zoos also lack any organization.
Is silence hurting zoos? Yes and no -- yes because new laws keep getting made, no in that silence protects oneself. But as you said, it doesn't feel good to have to be silent, and silence perpetuates the "status quo" of a progressively worse legal situation for zoos.
Correct -- and that is one of the reasons anti-zoo laws are wrong. The fear can also lead to depression and anxiety.
Correct -- and if zoo were legal, people could be more open to discussing their problems and finding solutions, rather then having to hide in fear all the time. They could also be more honest with their veterinarians without the fear of being arrested/punished. Anti-zoo laws won't stop people from having sex with animals -- they just make zoos go further "underground".
MLK said that there's never a bad time for justice. (Actual quote: "The time is always right to do what is right"). Though zoos face an extremely difficult task in eliminating anti-zoo laws. And who is going to speak up against anti-zoo laws when the conditions are so hostile?
"We cannot talk about zoophilia"....posting in a public forum constantly talking about zoophilia. Uh-huh...
"We do suffer from these laws"...and how exactly do you suffer? Please name one, just ONE friggin´ case where a genuine zoo NOT involved in pornmaking or fencehopping is suffering REAL consequences. Those who are indeed "suffering" are those who cannot keep off the public´s eye...keep it private and no suffering will ever occur.
"Many zoos live in fear.Every day." Whose fault is it when certain people, mostly those with no practical experience, constantly shit their pants because they see ghosts? Life IS danger, learn to live with risks, learn how to deal with risks, learn to correctly avoid risks. It´s really as simple as that. Your pov is just bogus...or, as AB has put it in another thread: "Hell, the arrests for bestiality are already in the two digit range....they´re coming at me tomorrow for sure." Learn to manage your irrational fears rather than trying to impose your twisted perceptions onto society. It isn´t as dangerous as most of you like to portray it.
BTW: Having the "freedom" to talk about it is exactly what has taken over in all the "zoo forums"; it´s apparently NOT being able to live a zoo life anymore, it´s about rubbing it into every random bloke´s face without having to fear consequences or repercussions, right? See my Schopenhauer quote from my earlier post....blah,blah,blah, yadda,yadda,yadda... My point: LIVING a zoo life isn´t having effects on society when done in privacy. But TALKING about it is definitely having effects on privacy, just take a look at BF and how many openly admit that this "freedom" of easily accessible animal porn and the filter bubble that´s erected in such forums is what "got them hooked". Talking about zoophilia in public (yes, the internet also counts as public) IS detrimental to society as a whole. Many so called "zoophiles" would never ever have been confronted with animal sex if there wasn´t so many eejits openly promoting (" Not comparable to human contact; orgiastic, must try") bestiality online. "We crave what we see" Hannibal Lecter,The silence of the Lambs
"And what are zoos supposed to do who live in more public spaces?" Are you friggin´ kidding me? I lived with my mare in open sight for all the other horseowners and visitors of my riding club. Yet I´m still not in jail. How´s that possible? Well, read my stuff and you might can a small glimpse of an idea what the REAL issues are the people have with "us" zoophiles...
"Today, uploading a video of yourself shagging an animal is dumb.But only because we´re punished for it"...Wow.Just wow. I´m literally speechless from your short sighted view here. It´s ONE thing to sleep with an animal you love, but it´s a completely different thing to turn your sexual adventures into fame or monetary gains. There´s more ethically questionable issues in porn making than just the possibility to get thrown in jail for distribution of illegal porn. But why am I surprised? The antis may not be so wrong when they say we zoos are self centered and all we´re really concerned about is us and not the animal in the slightest. On one hand, all the zoos don´t hesitate to point out the exploitation of animals in commercial breeding farms, but on the other hand, porn is not a problem? Although it´s the SAME fucking exploitative impetus behind the entire porn making? And how do you explain what even fucking ZETA states on their homepage: "Animal porn is mainly made for bored "normal" individuals in search for yet another unusual kick, not for real zoophiles? Apologetic for the AP industry... A propos animal porn: Illegal "zoophilia" seems to get rid of the professional animal porn industry, an industry I hope we all agree on their lack of concern for the animal´s wellbeing. Where does all the "pro" porn come from? I´ll tell you: from nations in which sex with animals ISN`T punished. Demanding "legal" zoophilia will definitely encourage some assholes to try and make some happy buck out of it for sure, ´cause history has proven this to be a correct assumption. "Legal" zoophilia will help the assholes the most. How "zoophile" is it for you to "buy" your personal "freedom" to talk about your carnal desires with the lives and wellbeing of those animals used for commercial porn production? Zoophilia is about humans first, right? /s
"People have to put their fake mask on..." Yeah. So what? Earth to WarCanine: We ALL have to wear "masks" in public, regardless of our sexual orientation. Reality TV may have distorted your vision, but belive me, this "problem" of wearing a mask is NOT exclusively reserved for animal fuckers. It´s called social behavior. Wearing certain masks is the glue of societies, man. Without these masks, life would be utter chaos.
Look, man...I understand your juvenile impetus, I understand where you´re coming from. But with the decades of experience living as a zoophile amidst the "normals", always in open sight, I can only say that your perspective on the problem of "zoophilia in the public eye" may be somehow chivalrous, but defintiely not very smart...especially not in an era of returning conservatism, autocratic dictators on the rise and the return of the crusade mentality in many religious folks. This isn´t a "waiting game", this is basic survival. Do you know Tenchu? Splinter Cell? The Metal Gear Solid Series? These stealth games can teach us a very valuable lesson...it´s NOT about building up superior strength to win an open battle, it´s about the right timing, analysing situations correctly, identifying possible advantages...and then, striking with all you have when the right situation arises. When a small group of poorly armed individuals are trying to resist a huge army, outnumbering and outgunning the resistors by a 1: 1 mil ratio, open battle is for the imbeciles. Guerrilla tactics is the key, the ONLY key that eventually can lead to success. History teaches you that. Quick strikes and even quicker retreat before the backup troops can engage in the battle...if you call this a "waiting game", well, man, just go to your local town hall and start yelling that you finger your bitches´vagina and you think it should be legal and see where it takes you. We don´t need Ramboesque fools, we need dedicated guerrilleros ,with patience, with enough wits to survive, with enough foresight and introspection to be ahead of the opposing force at least two steps at all time.Not morons yelling "Leeroy Jenkinsssss" while running into their doom...
"Humans will never change"...well, that´s your view. I, on the contrary, see how much the 80s, the time in which I grew up, is different from today. That´s just 35 years and I can assure you that you´d be utterly surprised by how different these 80s folks are from today´s average Joe. Also, please take note that society´s attitude towards more..uhm, unconventional sexual attractions fluctuates. It´s basically like a swinging pendulum, back and forth. The 70s were an era of practically limitless sexuality, even pedophilia was something that hasen´t been dismissed from discussion categorically. Then, the incredibly restrictive 80s, with the Yuppies, with AIDS and returning conservatism followed; that era was followed by the rather orgiastic 90s, with homosexuality being perfectly acceptable for a majority of normal people. Hell, when I was attending the first two or three love parades, people were fucking openly in broad daylight to the rhythm of the music. Not to say that I was buzzed by that public display of monkey sex, but that surely gives an impression of the decade I´m talking about. To abbreviate it: attitudes fluctuate; in eras and areas. Just let all those neocons ruin their countries and societies, like they always do, like they did in the 60s, what culminated in the ´68/´69 "summer of love". Do yourself a favour and study Eastern philosophy..the Yin-Yang symbol especially. Worse is better sometimes...only when the laws get more and more intrusive, when authorities overdo it with their control mechanisms, only then it won´t be just some random animal fuckers demanding a complete readjustment of how we live together from scratch. You all shit your pants because of laws that ,objectively seen, are completely ineffective when we zoos focus on keeping our privacy. The louder you demand "legal zoophilia" now, the more severe the authorities will prosecute all of us...and you might think we´re already at the peak of prosecution , but I can only say you all should brace yourselves for the near future, ´cause you ain´t seen shit yet. Arapio and his goons , just an extreme for now...but what if the government decides to take Arapio as an example for the near future? Do you want to deliver them all the reasons for untilising their existing spy apparatus, PRISM and such? There are only two types of guerrilleros, impatient ones and those who are alive.
If you´re fascinated with the "Thanatos" aspect of life and are seeking the "honorable demise" in battle with a superior force, I cannot help you...I´m more interested in "Eros" and "Agape" aspects and do anything to be there for horses first and foremost instead of the so called "zoophile community". For a real zoophile, animals ALWAYS come first, even if that means living his entire life under the radar of the public and authorities. I want to improve the life of the horses, of the animals in general....not my own life or that of any random "zoophile" primarily.If my or your life improves, that´s a nice side effect, but nothing else.
What this community is suffering from is the illusion of authority´s omnipotence and also from the illusion of our own´s impotence.
Yes, only on the internet. But even on the internet we have to hide ourselves. There's tons of things we can't share because that would make it easy for them.
Of course, very funny since I'm on an alt account. (Because of people irl. Funny, huh?) Again, I have to put that mask on again, even online. It's unnecessary and annoying as fuck. I'm forced into doing this because otherwise I will be unfairly punished.
And what do you say to those zoophiles who need help with their zoophilia?
Zoophiles have a high chance of having mental issues and of course zoophilia comes with certain hurdles, and sometimes you need someone else to help you with these, especially when they're not exactly mentally healthy.
Not everybody knows that this exists. Even then, it's not a solution...
I think that suffering might be a bit too big of a word for this, but you know what I mean. I don't know what else to call it.
How am I ''suffering?'' I already told you, I need to keep silent.
Nobody likes to keep silent. You told your sister and your mother about your zoophilia iirc. If so, why did you? What's the point?
Look, I'm not going outside and tell people. But I should at least have the RIGHT to talk about it or not be afraid to post/say anything that will make me look suspicious.
Also, what makes you think fencehoppers and porn makers aren't ''genuine zoos?''
Both of such people can love an animal as much as non-porn makers / non-fencehoppers.
Oh, and many people don't keep their things private, yet they aren't punished for it.
The one responsible for these laws is the one to blame for these fears. Without them, there would be no fear.
As I keep saying every time: It's unfair.
I have learned to live with risks. But you know what kind of risks? Risks that everyone has and are for that reason fair.
Not risks because humans are cancerous and toxic and force me to live how they want to, especially if it's unnecessary and can be undone.
It's not about ''rubbing it anyone's face'' it's about freedom and equal rights as human fuckers.
I hate repeating the same thing over again. So basically: Everything I said before in this post.
Iirc you claimed that people were suspicious of you with your mare. The riding club and that one Dutch family?
So how did those stories of yours go again? People thought you were a zoophile and people just accepted it because you're good for her?
Hey, that story is also familiar in my life! So many people suspect me of being a zoophile.
There's many reasons for that, but a few of them is that people see I act ''weird'' around her and because I put her above everything. But it doesn't matter people haven't reported us yet, we are supposed to stop this from happening itfp according to you, right?
Some day it'll go wrong. Some day it will...
So can you please tell me what's actually wrong with animal porn?
If it's all consensual, the animal is not being used a sex toy, no sexual training done and both enjoy it there is no problem at all.
I know there's loads of animal porn out there where that's not true, but that doesn't prove anything.
What exactly is wrong by gaining money with this?
I don't want to upload porn of myself ever if I even could, but if I did I'd spend the money I gained on her.
And even if I didn't, it wouldn't be wrong as I'm just taking the best out of anything. It doesn't make a difference except for that fact I'd be getting money.
Wow, big deal.
So what if that's true?
It's not made specifically for me, but I can use it. There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Sorry that I don't have a sexual outlet?
Well, you changed my mind on this. A quick solution would be to make only porn illegal.
Although, I still think it would be sick since innocent people can suffer from it.
Except we wear this mask because of unfair opinions of people.
How many times do I have to repeat that it's unfair?
Damn, if we were in charge of a country nobody could talk about sex at all then because you're supposed to keep it private. Right? Right?
And still, I don't wear that much masks. I don't really have anything to hide except my zoo life because humanity is still a failure.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell here. I don't do anything to help zoophilia in the first place and never will.
I don't give a shit about any tactic, because I know it's less than useless. It's as useless as those freaks talking to their big invisible imaginary friend and expecting to end up in a paradise.
I'd rather stand back and watch zoos waste their time. Sometimes it hurts to see, sometimes it's amusing.
...What? What does that have to do with this?
So because my bitch is more important than anything, I shouldn't give a shit what happens to me?
I want to live a fair life and have equal rights and that doesn't mean she doesn't come first. I just want to be able to improve my life.
With the same logic, I shouldn't do anything which doesn't profit her because she always comes first.
And I know that if a zoos' life improves, the life of their animal partner also improves, too.
And by the way...
omgg specisism u arent a zophil1!!1
Some things I want to add:
Firstly, zoos can get "outed" or exposed even if they do everything they can to remain private. (For example, a suspicious veterinarian). Privacy alone is not foolproof. Second, authorities are already cracking down on zoo, regardless of how vocal zoos are. Third, laws vary by jurisdiction and country, and some laws (such as those in the United States) are particularly severe: for example, in Oregon it is a felony and sex offender registry offense (up to 5 years in prison and $125,000 fine), while in Michigan one can be put in prison for the rest of their lives.
Anti-zoo laws are unfair -- they discriminate against zoos, oppress them, force them to stay in the closet, allow the government to steal their animals, give preferential treatment to those who have sex with humans, etc. Zoos do suffer under these laws, because of the mentioned reasons, and because they enable stigma and public shaming for those who are caught, as well as ruining people's lives (and ruining their animal's lives). The question is, what can be done to eliminate the anti-zoo laws, because the anti-zoos are so powerful, and no zoo is willing to go public to try and oppose them (due to the risk).
One of the reasons anti-zoo laws are wrong is because they unjustly take away a zoo's rights, and create inequalities/hypocrisies in the law (such as allowing artificial insemination, but condemning less harmful sex with animals). Zoos are wrongfully labeled as "criminals" for being who they are.
Isn't that defeatism? So you see no hope for zoo ever becoming accepted/tolerated?
That is indeed defeatism.
I already have little to no hope for humanity left to begin with.
The way antis are treating us and how outnumbered we are, I'm going to say no. I've seen enough people say it should be illegal because it's disgusting to them.
All the logic is thrown out of the window, except their own poppycock logic.
Antis don't need to make sense, they're bigger in numbers and will stay that way.
And of course, how humans are in general. I keep saying it: Religion.
I can't look at someone who believes in a mainstream religion and think they've got some kind of intelligence in there. I just can't.
And not to mention that such religions say bestiality is bad and all...
I see people saying we should give this time.
But, for how long?
I couldn't care less if this happens after I become 40 years old or when I'm dead.
And you know, I've become quite careless of what people think of us. I know I don't hurt her.
What I'd really like changed is my freedom.
I shouldn't be afraid to say "I am not attracted to humans."
"I´ve become quite careless of what people think of us. I know I don´t hurt her". Finally you see the light, mate. Now you only need to get rid of this idea that , in order to reach peace of mind, you need to tell other people what you are and are not attracted to....and then, you made it through. Welcome to the other side.
I've changed my mind on what others think of us longer ago.
I still care, just not much. Especially compared to this shit.
People's opinions don't affect me, but those laws and my lack of freedom do.
I also have opinions that human sex is extremely fucking disgusting, but that's not as if I banned people from talking about it and ruining their lives if they did.
It's actions versus opinions.
The idea that it's unfair will never change in me. And I will never stand for it. Innocent animals and humans are stolen from eachother and their lives ruined.
And it has directly affected my life because of many reasons and it greatly interferes with our relationship.
So I'd rather not go to "the other side" and accept that I'm being treated as a slave or a child who's not allowed to talk.
Whatever you're doing, it's not working because I'm only realizing how I hate such humans more and more sometimes.
Okay, I see...you´re still too much of a human...
And don´t you mistake independence from this "zoo drama" for acceptance...nobody cares for your sexuality unless you´re making them care for it..."Loquere argentum, sed tacere aurum est"
That's funny. I'm pretty sure nobody cared about the anti-sex opinions until they made us care by making it the law.
Perhaps I wouldn't look like a psychopath and maybe I wouldn't want to cut their ears off if I didn't care about the law. If we should all be like you, then people should take care to make sure that nobody else cares. I can't stop caring until they die, their whole family dies or the law dies.
In response to 3030...It's ironic, funny. I'm pretty sure nobody cared about the anti-animal sex opinions until they made us care by making it the law.
Perhaps I wouldn't sound like a psychopath and maybe I wouldn't feel the need to cut their ears off if I didn't care about the law. If we should all not care, then people should take care to make sure that nobody else cares. Maybe that's what societies useless drugs were for.
It sucks actually. I can't stop caring until those people die, their whole family dies or the law dies. There's nothing to take my divert my attention away from that anymore.
A suspicious veterinarian? Ridiculous. Just tell me ONE friggin´case in which only a suspicious vet sent a "zoophile" in jail. You´re always insisting on "countless zoos are thrown in jail unfairly".....if you´re such an expert on this, maybe you can provide us with hard numbers instead of that "countless" , "many" and "lots of" bullshit.
Seriously, name just ONE damn case in which the "zoo" hasn´t actively participated in his/her own exposure and I´ll be silent about this from now on...come on, dude, bring it...
We don't hear enough about the cruelty, discrimination, and violence towards zoophiles because people are trying to maintain their cover up of the abuse. As you can see, they have no problem blaming the zoophiles and telling them there's nothing they can do.
It's the same thing as Holocaust Denial. More fakes around here claiming "Nothing goes on. Zoos aren't being snuffed out and exterminated," trying to drown out the fact that Yes these things are happening
Clearly, if people do not care that zoophiles are being treated this way, tortured, losing their lives... then how is remaining peaceful going to solve anything? The elephants in Africa are very peaceful, but that isn't stopping the Anti-Zoo brigade from gutting them too. Bottom line, these people are out to kill us and the Law is the only way they can look like heroes doing it.
OMG, the drama queen is at it again... I won´t honour this rubbish of yours with an answer but I´m really curious which "zoophiles" are "tortured, losing their lives"....can you come up with hard facts instead of your phantasmagorical drama?
Yes I have. It's just...my facts are much too hard for you. Of course, "you must learn to walk before you can run."
My dick surely is harder than your fake facts....get lost, kid!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hm, can you explain this line of your thinking a bit more? Like... I found being consistent actually easier for me internally, because I don't need to remember ever-increasing amount of special cases when I somewhat supposed to behave / talk very differently from what I really think ... Sure, some attempt at making myself more understanable exist in me, and I try to be adaptive, in how I talk...But...it really interesting to see why you think about society, social life and chaos ..in this specific relations to each other (I hope I will return to this tab in less than 10 days...).
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. We aren't really stuck, you just want us to be.
Anyways...Serial killers are the means to the Anti-zoos envisioned end. It wasn't my idea. Anti-Zoos are the ones who wanted zoophiles to be criminals, so it's not surprising if the Anti-Zoos we're home growing their own terrorists from zoophiles.
Like Mr. Mitt Romney said.. "If they want more, why don't they just make it?"
This is ridiculous writing - the article states:
Report of a law,
report of a law,
report of something stepdaughter/technicality,
HERE COMES THE AUTHORS ADDITION TO THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE: It's all horrific, let's chop off their heads.
fin.