[NS] Thanks to 30-30's latest rant on the toxicity of BeastForum and other fetishist, amoral sites, I thought I should explain why I still think most sex with animals is done nonabusively. The trouble with this is the lack of statistical evidence on sex with animals in general, as people who have it tend to keep quiet about it by necessity. So I'm forced to argue indirectly from the larger set of sexual relationships in human beings in the United States.
According to the latest Crime Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 1.5 rapes or sexual assaults per 1,000 people were committed in 2015, with another 3 instances of intimate partner violence per 1,000 people. This is based on a survey of a large sample of about 100,000 American households, entirely self-reported with a specific initiative to identify cases of rape and sexual assault and get around its gross underreporting to police. Further, because many of these crimes are repeated with the same victims and often the same perpetrators, the actual proportion of sexual assault victims turns out to be half the proportion of incidents (0.08%), and the proportion of "beaten wives" (for lack of a better word) is cut in thirds (0.12%).
Now, when I compare the at most 0.2% of people who are victims of abusive relationships in this way to the more than 50% of adult Americans who are married or living with a partner, I see that such relationships appear to be a net benefit to people in them in general. While the potential for abuse exists, it most often does not occur because people tend to idealize their partners and avoid hurting them if they can. This doesn't require a transcendent spiritual connection, just ordinary human empathy and social contracts.
I have no reason to believe that relationships with animals would be any different: a few bad eggs in a mostly good batch. The difference is that relationships with animals are kept in the shadows and only publicized when they go badly, skewing public perception. Due to their relative rarity to begin with, it's difficult to publicize counterexamples without destroying their reputations due to bad PR and worse moral arguments.
To finish, I'd like to suggest a solution to this problem: besides denouncing bad cases as despicable, we should also raise up good cases as examples to counter the prevailing narrative. Even a single positive interspecies relationship, with proper treatment, would at least let people question whether such relationships can be good instead of assuming otherwise.
###This thread is in NO SALT mode!
Please be aware that rule 7 will be enforced more heavily in this thread and all disrespectful or derogatory comments in this thread will be immediately removed pending a report and moderator discretion.
Disrespect is defined as anything, intentional or unintentional, that appears to be meant to offend, shame, harass, or otherwise derogate another individual or group, within /r/zoophilia or without.
This does not include observations or fair criticisms whose verbiage is not inherently inflammatory and can be reasonably inferred or verified in some capacity. Potentially inflammatory opinions that are clarified as such and are in posts not intended to be inflammatory are not infractions. Our definition of disrespect is not meant to infringe upon freedom of speech, and if you think a post was wrongly marked for infraction, you are free to appeal it in a reply to a moderator's comment.
If you're unsure about whether your post has dangerously high sodium content, submit a modmail with a copy of your comment. We will tell you how to keep your comment heart healthy when needed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
You don't know if this is true or not.
This is one of the things that need research before you know if it's true or not.
Antis being antis, they'd come up with: ''Yeah, you're the only one treating her right. Your case is anecdotal.''
I've seen it before, which was expected because antis will make up so much excuses because they don't like to admit defeat and are bigoted.
Our relationships are very different. That already explains enough.
What I meant is a reason to suppose a large percentage of people having sex with animals do so without trying not to harm them. I don't think the main disincentive from abusive behavior is the law against it: rather, I think the law represents an attempt to formalize rules which most people follow anyway, so that we as a society can punish those who don't follow them. I would just argue that laws should be made based on the actual effects of the actions considered, rather than the preservation of a desired social tradition.
[removed]
The issue is, in order for a good interspecies sexual relationship to be recognized, it needs to be publicized -- and because publicizing it would make the person (who is having zoosex) a target of witch-hunting, persecution and prosecution, the good cases remain hidden from view. And as you said, bad cases are more likely to become public and thus distort the true situation (which, as you said, is likely to be mostly good people with a few bad people).
There may be some who were in a good relationship who were then outed/arrested, but those people seem to not discuss their view on it after being caught.
This is one reason why not having anti-zoo laws would be good: if there were no anti-zoo laws, and if zoos did not have to constantly fear being arrested, they could be more open about their previously-hidden sexual activities with animals, and more reliable and accurate data could be obtained.
The hard part is getting anti-zoos to recognize that an interspecies sexual relationship (one which involves a human) can be good. Many anti-zoos, such as those at HSUS, have a bigoted and prejudiced view that ALL sex with animals, no matter what, is inherently "abusive" and bad -- this stubborn, prejudiced, absolutist view is a problem.
Yeah, Kynophile...keeping the myth alive! The Easter bunny IS real! Don´t let reality tell you otherwise...or the vast archive of articles about caught "zoophiles"...
Oh, by the way, no one has answered my question from another thread... What exactly is this magic that turns "representative, non caught zoophiles" into the direct opposite when caught? Does the Tooth Fairie sprinkle magic dust on them and they miraculously transform into folks who also have child porn on their hard drives? Does the magic dust secretly copy child porn onto their hard drives by itself?
How it comes that all those "totally harmless singular cases" form a pretty decent and consistent picture of so called "zoophiles"? And if we accept that motives to sexually engage with animals are manifold and diverse, why is it so hard to accept that there are real monsters walking among us? Why is it so easy for you to neglect the hard facts, the cold reality? Why don´t you realise that positive prejudice is also nothing more than prejudice? And @Skg..., come on, dude, there are more than enough articles of so called "positive" nature out there, they´re frequently linked in several "zoo forums"...yet, society´s view hasn´t changed much? Why do you still believe in this "we just have to come out and everything will gonna be alright" crap? Just face the facts for once, will you, please? Legalisation won´t have much of an effect on the life of a real zoophile, but it will make sexual exploitation of animals way easier for all those animal porn producers and other vile folks. "Hey, do you wanna attend our annual canine fuck fest? It´ll be just 250 bucks to participate! Thankfully, there are no laws against mass dog fucking events like ours anymore because those gullible and hopelessly romantic fools thought they were fighting for "their cause", but in reality, they made it incredibly easy for us to get rich with our dog brothel. Oh, of course we don´t call it that, because "animal brothels don´t exist"...* laughs in animal exploiter language* Who could have known that having no rules ("legalisation") and no reglementations would benefit the worst the most? Oh, there was this one guy on reddit who foresaw it...but who listens to the rational guys anymore? "
Fools...hopeless romantic fools living in a self created alternative reality that´s completely disconnected to anything from the real world out there. Filter bubbles and mutual self assertion.
As if your sexuality determines your character...."hetero normies are bad and intolerant because they´re hetero normies, but anything gay is inherently good...and those zoophiles, they are the spearhead of goodness"...what a delusional view. Open your eyes, folks! Just for once! Get rid of your prejudices and confront the grim reality!
Thanks for the projection. You keep saying the reality is grim when the evidence you use to come to this conclusion (news stories about people who are caught) would have a bias toward negativity and sensationalism regardless of the actual prevalence of such abuse. I don't claim that these cases are false, but rather that they should not be the only consideration in determining who we are as people.
Imagine if the only thing we heard about sex between people from news media and entertainment was rape cases and abuse cases. We would, justifiably, fear it as a moral evil due to all the stories we know of the harm it does. But we would be wrong to continue doing so if we later learned that these tragedies formed a tiny fraction of the total cases. Even if the proportion of abuse cases were significant, our opinion would be tempered by the presence of more neutral or positive cases.
As for abusive practices like animal brothels, stronger animal cruelty laws properly enforced could deal with them well enough without the presumption of abuse in all cases. I understand your concern for silent victims who can't defend themselves, and I want to fight that too, but broader laws do nothing to help them given the general lack of interest in genuinely protecting animals. You don't destroy a black market by increasing the variety of goods and services only available illicitly, as evidenced by the results of various forms of drug prohibition in the United States: you create a competing legal market and drive the shadier competitors out of it by exposing their shitty practices to the public.
So, 30-30, I've heard your argument that people who have sex with animals either are more often than not abusive or will inevitably be perceived that way by the public (I'm honestly unsure which you mean here), and am not convinced of it. Further, given your rebuttal's assumptions about my position, you seem to think my position is the opposite of yours in every way, which is far more extreme than anything I've stated here. So I have a few questions for you, to better understand why you think what you do.
Why do you assume that zoophiles who are arrested for it form a representative sample when, due to the nature of the crime, getting caught is difficult without other circumstances which make it more likely to be harmful to begin with?
The premise to your question from the other thread is that individual zoophiles are placed in the "good" category until they are caught, then deemed "bad" and dismissed. This is a simplification of my actual argument (people get the benefit of the doubt, provisionally, until there's enough information to make a more solid judgment), but do you have a specific example of a zoo lauded by the community, then shunned and dismissed after they were caught?
Why do zoophiles have to be monolithic in public or even personal opinions? We don't have to pretend all zoos are saints, nor that all zoos are sadists, so why is the benefit of the doubt wrong to advocate for?
If laws against sex with animals disincentivize animal brothels and porn, do laws against gambling disincentivize bookies? Do laws against alcohol disincentivize speakeasies with bathtub gin?
Why does your last paragraph assume that identity politics, and specifically the demonization of heterosexuality, is involved here, especially since the argument I've presented depends on their equivalence and would apply less if sexual orientation determined personality in this way?
I look forward to your response, though I hope I don't feel compelled to read it in the voice of Rorschach from Watchmen as I was for this post.
Actually, it will.
How many people are suspicious of you again? If that goes wrong sometime, you insulted yourself.
Anyways, it always will change their fear, their freedom, etc.
But since it's not your problem, but only the majority of zoos, you don't care because it's not about you.
I'm not going to repeat what I said earlier. I'll cut it short: Zoos like us need rights because of many reasons. I have a lot of problems, many of them are zoo related and I can't talk to anyone about them.
And I've also been in the same situation as you.
You realize we can get rid of current bestiality laws and create new ones to prevent this? Sometimes I wonder how far you see.
Not far, considering you only look in the mirror because everyone has to be like you.
As much as this would be fantastic, try and actually get a new law passed and we will start looking at this realistically.
Realistically? What do you mean? The fact that it will never happen? I know that but I'm just arguing against what he's saying. I know there's 0% chance for any zoo movement. Anyone thinks otherwise is extremely delusional.
Anyways, if this was possible it means freedom for zoophiles and it wouldn't change for the animal rapists, abusers and such.
I really wonder if you've ever heard the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and understood what it meant, reading your logic here.
Personally I'd say that the percentage of negative (including some preventable accidents and problems caused by ignorance) sexual interactions is probably closer to the percentage of negative non-sexual interactions with animals than sexual actions with humans. I haven't personally seen a significant difference in zoos knowledge of animal behavior and care compared to non-zoos except in "how their genitalia works".
This is kind of hard to measure because what qualifies as 'negative' is going to vary. I personally use it to cover any instance where someone is inflicting physical/psychological pain or significant discomfort and stress that isn't necessary. Even with a definition it's difficult to measure because a lot of these interactions are brief, don't leave noticeable marks, some are culturally acceptable, and not everyone is aware they're doing it.
As an example, I've seen someone hold a visibly uncomfortable dog in place on a choke collar to be petted interpreting the dog's panting and lip licking as a happy face. They neither intended abuse or thought they were doing anything wrong, though they were in fact putting the dog in a negative situation. If they were self-reporting negative interactions, they would not classify this as one and might even consider it a positive one. I've seen similar things happen with sexual interactions as well.
But, by and large, despite sounding a bit cynical I don't believe most interactions with animals are negative. Most people love their animals and their animals love them. Should we ban petting and playing games just because some people force their dogs into the interactions? Obviously not. So why should sex be different?
Good point. Misinterpretations can still happen with zoos and their animals, since there is neither an IQ test nor a personality test needed to feel this way about them.
I'll be honest with you here, I dont think this argument is valid. I dont think it is appropriate to be comparing relationships with animals to relationships with other humans. Im not necessarily saying that you are wrong to be assuming that the majority of sex with animals is nonabusive, but I dont think there is any way to prove if this is true. Although my personal experiences have lead me to believe the opposite. I also think we're fighting over something rather trivial here, as it honestly doesnt matter what the real numbers are, it just matters what is perceived by the public.
If some outsider was to read an article on how a person was convicted for sexual abuse of an animal, they would probably hear about how BF has 1.5 million users, and they might even hear that this man is a self-proclaimed zoophile. Of course this changes case by case, but are you seeing at what im tryna get at here? I think that there are a variety of factors that really impact our image to the public, but there are two primary things that honestly all issues stem from:
Sex with animals, IN ANY FORM, is often considered strange, wrong, and disgusting. This is something that comes intrinsically for many people, and usually results in arguments of consent and morality of sex. This is a hurdle we simply must overcome, something that can be done by simply appearing like otherwise normal human beings. Providing good examples of animal relationships and debating respectfully with nonzoos can help us out with this, but there is more than just this that we must address...
The actions of bestialists and falsely identifying zoophiles. I dont care how much sex with animals is done abusively, if you were to go up to someone on the streets and ask them what zoophilia is (assuming they have actually heard it before), ill bet they'll say it means having sex with an animal. What does this originate from? This person is getting the idea that zoophilia means sex with animals because there are people out there who will call themselves zoophiles without having a clue what it really means, have sex with random animals on a regular basis, then go ranting about it blindly until one day they get caught, and boom, the next day you get a news headline: "Self-proclaimed Zoophile gets caught for sexually abusing an animal". And that's as much as the public will ever hear.
Everyone here knows what zoophilia is, yet we are so quick to defend anyone who is ever arrested for animal sex related cases without even considering whether this person is someone worth defending, just as we are too quick to accept people as zoos without actually questioning their true intentions.
Honestly Kynophile I think that you agree with most of what I am saying here. I think we need to get over our petty quarrels with other individuals who are fighting for the same thing as us, and I think we need to consider doing something about these problems rather than attempting to dissect trivial facts about the issues. Does it really matter how much sex with animals is done nonabusively to the public eye? Is anyone outside this sub going to take that into consideration when they read about how yet another person has been convicted for sexually abusing an animal? As zoos we need to make the core distinction between a bestialist and one of us, AND ALSO make sure that the public sees this difference. And this begins with things such as identifying people that attempt to infiltrate the community under a false pretense as zoos. If a weed begins growing in your garden, you dont let it grow and eventually become a problem. You pull it out from the root up and deal with it before a problem begins...