OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 9 points on 2017-05-03 05:38:57
They obviously have no interest in hearing our side of the issue here, so I have little to say.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 5 points on 2017-05-03 06:32:52
Eh, Cali has surprised me before. I'm interested to see how the state government approaches this.
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 5 points on 2017-05-03 06:41:46
I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they were different, but I really doubt they will be. Still, there's always room for hope.
doghumper 3 points on 2017-05-03 20:41:10
Nope, it will never happen. Nobody wants to deal with the ridicule from defending it, Denmark tried to be rational about it for the longest time but in the end they banned sex with animals because they didn't want to be known globally as that one country where everyone fucks their pets. I am sure it works the same way with states inside USA now that the number of them that have no laws is rapidly approaching zero. :(
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 2 points on 2017-05-03 22:16:57
Nope, it will never happen. Nobody wants to deal with the ridicule from defending it
To be fair, that's not entirely true. In Denmark and the Netherlands, the vote was actually close enough to 50/50, that the queen in both cases could've vetoed it (or rather, in european terms "failed to give royal assent.") Both queens didn't of course, but the vote was hardly cut and dry, and in the Netherlands in particular was within 10 votes IIRC.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-05 11:51:47
Nobody actually "defended" zoophilia....most of the nay-sayers just thought the small numbers of cases emerging to the public doesn´t justify making laws. Neither in Denmark nor in the land of Gouda and Ganja a single person demanded "legal" zoophilia because he/she sympathised with us in any way. Small, but distinctive difference. The nay-sayers just felt that the whole process of making a law is an exaggerated effort to prevent a pretty rare "crime".
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-05-05 21:08:16
You may want to read up on the composition of the Dutch parliment vote. For whatever reason man, nearly 48% did not want the anti-bestiality bill. A far cry from here, is my point.
And HIS point was that standing up to a bill is the same as "defending it (bestiality)" due to the ridicule attached. My counter point illustrates this is not the case at least in some countries.
Those are facts. Deal with them.
EDIT: Actually, I won't make you research the dutch parliament's vote because the bill's vote composition has vanished from the web, and a few news sources claim it was "unanimous," and I know that's BS because I tracked it on dutch government websites at the time. But my point still stands.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-05-06 01:26:23
You´re wrong. I am in possession of the whole process which led to outlawing "zoophilia" in the Netherlands as a printout. The predominant counterargument was "Is it really necessary to issue a law that only affects a very small percentage of people, no matter how disgusting the soon-to-be outlawed practices seem to us?". That´s definitely something else than saying "Having sex with animals is a good thing and we should keep it legal in the name of freedom".
In fact, AFAIK, the only true pro voices I´ve ever heard came from Denmark. Only in Denmark, there was some dispute about whether having sex with animals really is harmful to them...but even in Denmark, the major counterargument was "Do we need an extra law for very few people who are engaging in such practices"....besides the usual animal sex tourism argument.
BTW: How fluent is your Dutch? As a "moffe" (derogative Dutch term for Germans), I have a definitive advantage ´cause for Germans, understanding Dutch isn´t exactly hard. Nearly the same...if you´re familiar with Northern German dialects like "Plattdeutsch" (spoken in the region of Hamburg, Friesia etc...)
Keep that in mind....bedaankt.
De Paardenkytnoiker ;)
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-05-06 09:35:29
sighs
Dude, I'm in agreement with you. My whole point is an argument against the idea that a "vote against anti-bestiality bills is a vote for zoophilia." Read my post again. If I'm wrong, you're wrong, making this whole thing some kind of confusing paradox.
My Dutch is as fluent as google translate, admitedly. It helps to read content though, like my posts, before claiming you disagree with them when I'm saying the exact same thing as you.
TheShotmeisterζ 3 points on 2017-05-06 07:23:24
Where did you see that it was close to 50/50 in Denmark?
Because it was only two small parties at the furthest left and right that didn't vote for the ban. Else all the other parties voted for it... I looked up the numbers and it was 91 for the law, and 5 against it. That's pretty far from 50/50 :P
OS2OslovDeer Zoo (non-active) 1 point on 2017-05-06 09:37:00
I meant the dutch were close to 50/50 (at least in the House of Representatives, home to some interesting parties to say the least), I didn't mean to lump Denmark in there other than to say there were votes against. Somehow it appears I implied Denmark was in the same 50/50 vetoable group: Let me correct that now. They weren't.
Have an upvote for the correction.
TheShotmeisterζ 1 point on 2017-05-06 15:55:14
Ah okay, just a simple misunderstanding.
It's not a problem. :)
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-14 00:54:45
[removed]
xX69_0n3_ha1f_cup_Xx 1 point on 2017-05-15 11:02:06
I was under the impression that most of their sex related laws were extremely liberal.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-05-10 15:06:36
[deleted]
fuzzyfurry 3 points on 2017-05-03 13:20:27
The usual mix of zoophilia, bestiality and animal cruelty with little effort to make distinctions.
A couple of things stuck out to me
In November 2016, ABC10 News reported, Abused Stockton dogs believed to be rented for sex, Rescuers said that veterinary examinations showed two of the dogs had severe damage and had been sexually abused, including the use of foreign objects. Neighbors and people in the community said that “the dogs were being rented for sex." The news station confirmed that, “the vet hospital was able to show us medical records and graphic photos of the assaults.”
For instance, at the beginning of the current legislative year, a leading animal-protection organization apologized for the necessity to mention “an awful topic,” in an e-mail, but explained it had been alerted to a possible deficiency in the current law prohibiting bestiality.
The e-mail said that, according to several members involved in law enforcement, a deficiency in the wording of PC 286.5 has been a barrier to prosecution in some cases because, “…this does not include sexual assault that is done for the sexual arousal/gratification of the animal.”
I think I remember writing a comment here once saying as much, because that immediately jumped out to me when reading the text of some proposed law. I think it should say something when stuff like this immediately jumps out to me, even when I am not a lawyer nor a native english speaker and stuff like this gets worked on by lawyers (for months?) and they never notice how awkward their wording is. Either they are really lazy writing these law texts or they genuinely can not comprehend that someone would do something sexual with a nonhuman animal with the goal to give pleasure to the animal. Neither option looks very favorably for them...
And at the end of the article, they really ask
Or, should bestiality just be considered a personal love of animals?
I would be surprised if after reading that article someone not familiar with the topic would agree with this position. While ZETA and Peter Singer's positions have been mentioned, they immediately went back to
Sexually abused animals may present with injuries of the sexual organs, rectum or anus.
These can involve lacerations of the organs, ligatures applied to the sexual organs and may involve the use of implements (eg tampons, spoons, broom handles, knives etc.).
instead of trying to establish some lines between whether and what effects different kinds of sex and sexual abuse might have on animals...
[deleted] 0 points on 2017-05-04 01:43:14
[removed]
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2017-05-05 07:21:24
It sounds like this is just an opinion piece at this point. There's not a super prominent movement here currently, from the linked website it seems like they're really just starting. Before this becomes a bigger movement there'd probably need to be something that'd push the issue into the public eye. Because bestiality is already illegal in the state it'd need to be a pretty egregious incident that leaves people feeling unsatisfied.
I don't think it's impossible for this to become bigger, just that on its own right now it doesn't seem like a huge threat.
/r/zoophilia archive
They obviously have no interest in hearing our side of the issue here, so I have little to say.
Eh, Cali has surprised me before. I'm interested to see how the state government approaches this.
I'd be very pleasantly surprised if they were different, but I really doubt they will be. Still, there's always room for hope.
Nope, it will never happen. Nobody wants to deal with the ridicule from defending it, Denmark tried to be rational about it for the longest time but in the end they banned sex with animals because they didn't want to be known globally as that one country where everyone fucks their pets. I am sure it works the same way with states inside USA now that the number of them that have no laws is rapidly approaching zero. :(
To be fair, that's not entirely true. In Denmark and the Netherlands, the vote was actually close enough to 50/50, that the queen in both cases could've vetoed it (or rather, in european terms "failed to give royal assent.") Both queens didn't of course, but the vote was hardly cut and dry, and in the Netherlands in particular was within 10 votes IIRC.
Nobody actually "defended" zoophilia....most of the nay-sayers just thought the small numbers of cases emerging to the public doesn´t justify making laws. Neither in Denmark nor in the land of Gouda and Ganja a single person demanded "legal" zoophilia because he/she sympathised with us in any way. Small, but distinctive difference. The nay-sayers just felt that the whole process of making a law is an exaggerated effort to prevent a pretty rare "crime".
You may want to read up on the composition of the Dutch parliment vote. For whatever reason man, nearly 48% did not want the anti-bestiality bill. A far cry from here, is my point.
And HIS point was that standing up to a bill is the same as "defending it (bestiality)" due to the ridicule attached. My counter point illustrates this is not the case at least in some countries.
Those are facts. Deal with them.
EDIT: Actually, I won't make you research the dutch parliament's vote because the bill's vote composition has vanished from the web, and a few news sources claim it was "unanimous," and I know that's BS because I tracked it on dutch government websites at the time. But my point still stands.
You´re wrong. I am in possession of the whole process which led to outlawing "zoophilia" in the Netherlands as a printout. The predominant counterargument was "Is it really necessary to issue a law that only affects a very small percentage of people, no matter how disgusting the soon-to-be outlawed practices seem to us?". That´s definitely something else than saying "Having sex with animals is a good thing and we should keep it legal in the name of freedom".
In fact, AFAIK, the only true pro voices I´ve ever heard came from Denmark. Only in Denmark, there was some dispute about whether having sex with animals really is harmful to them...but even in Denmark, the major counterargument was "Do we need an extra law for very few people who are engaging in such practices"....besides the usual animal sex tourism argument.
BTW: How fluent is your Dutch? As a "moffe" (derogative Dutch term for Germans), I have a definitive advantage ´cause for Germans, understanding Dutch isn´t exactly hard. Nearly the same...if you´re familiar with Northern German dialects like "Plattdeutsch" (spoken in the region of Hamburg, Friesia etc...)
Keep that in mind....bedaankt.
De Paardenkytnoiker ;)
sighs
Dude, I'm in agreement with you. My whole point is an argument against the idea that a "vote against anti-bestiality bills is a vote for zoophilia." Read my post again. If I'm wrong, you're wrong, making this whole thing some kind of confusing paradox.
My Dutch is as fluent as google translate, admitedly. It helps to read content though, like my posts, before claiming you disagree with them when I'm saying the exact same thing as you.
Where did you see that it was close to 50/50 in Denmark? Because it was only two small parties at the furthest left and right that didn't vote for the ban. Else all the other parties voted for it... I looked up the numbers and it was 91 for the law, and 5 against it. That's pretty far from 50/50 :P
I meant the dutch were close to 50/50 (at least in the House of Representatives, home to some interesting parties to say the least), I didn't mean to lump Denmark in there other than to say there were votes against. Somehow it appears I implied Denmark was in the same 50/50 vetoable group: Let me correct that now. They weren't.
Have an upvote for the correction.
Ah okay, just a simple misunderstanding. It's not a problem. :)
[removed]
I was under the impression that most of their sex related laws were extremely liberal.
[deleted]
The usual mix of zoophilia, bestiality and animal cruelty with little effort to make distinctions.
A couple of things stuck out to me
Were they? The last thing on this story I can find with google news is STOCKTON — The claim that three Stockton dogs were sexually abused by men has been refuted by a veterinarian exam, according to the Stockton Police Department.. Of course that could still mean nothing, but this is the most recent article and it says there's no forensic evidence... Which is it?
This part made me chuckle:
I think I remember writing a comment here once saying as much, because that immediately jumped out to me when reading the text of some proposed law. I think it should say something when stuff like this immediately jumps out to me, even when I am not a lawyer nor a native english speaker and stuff like this gets worked on by lawyers (for months?) and they never notice how awkward their wording is. Either they are really lazy writing these law texts or they genuinely can not comprehend that someone would do something sexual with a nonhuman animal with the goal to give pleasure to the animal. Neither option looks very favorably for them...
And at the end of the article, they really ask
I would be surprised if after reading that article someone not familiar with the topic would agree with this position. While ZETA and Peter Singer's positions have been mentioned, they immediately went back to
instead of trying to establish some lines between whether and what effects different kinds of sex and sexual abuse might have on animals...
[removed]
It sounds like this is just an opinion piece at this point. There's not a super prominent movement here currently, from the linked website it seems like they're really just starting. Before this becomes a bigger movement there'd probably need to be something that'd push the issue into the public eye. Because bestiality is already illegal in the state it'd need to be a pretty egregious incident that leaves people feeling unsatisfied.
I don't think it's impossible for this to become bigger, just that on its own right now it doesn't seem like a huge threat.