A question about the acceptance of Bestiality, and how it could've been more accepted nowadays

[BlackMesa1996]

So, if in an alternative universe. The entire situation with Mr.Hands never took place. Would zoo be more commonly accepted nowadays?, Because from what I've read, this incident marked the start of the people hating Zoo's. So if in a world where he never got himself killed, do you think that things would've been different?

 

[pes]

No.

 

[dogluver101]

This was always a taboo that was never accepted. The news with Mr. Hands was only big enough to be heard about by people that never thought this type of thing existed.

 

[nekdoneco123]

if not mr.hands, there would be someone else anyway.

 

[Goattobeloved]

There were a few more big incidents by the time.

Of course, death by horse makes more momorable headlines than "animal brothel raided" or whatever...

Spain had its headlines of the guy crushed under a boulder with a chicken, photo and alll in the newspaper.
Nothing happened because it was pre internet. So blame the fast communications for the problems...

 

[saddlebum66]

Nada to do with Mr Hands. He was a victim of the legal system, not the cause of any changes.

 

[valleyyote]

Well I think if certain folks had not been so in your face an out in the open it might still be legal in some areas. Folks get tired of idiots trying to shove something down their throats especially if its not really readily accepted already. It is the same reason the whole mess got shut down in germany. Folks got tired of people hiring out their animals as prostitutes. There was a whole market and groups of folks making it into a rather lucrative business for many years. I remember reading several articles online after bills had been passed to ban everything and why it was done. They wished to keep animals from harm and unnecessary abuse. It was getting rather crazy. As to the mister hands thing that was the straw that broke the camels back her in Washington state. Shortly after he was dumped at the hospital bills were purposed, they were drawn up, it was voted on and the days of free zooing were over. When folks want to ban something because it comes out so publicly it doesn't take long for it to happen. It was a unanimous vote against it in the legisslature. So yes I would have to say in some instances it can be blamed on a single individual.

 

[Caniform]

Well I think if certain folks had not been so in your face an out in the open it might still be legal in some areas. Folks get tired of idiots trying to shove something down their throats especially if its not really readily accepted already. It is the same reason the whole mess got shut down in germany. Folks got tired of people hiring out their animals as prostitutes. There was a whole market and groups of folks making it into a rather lucrative business for many years. I remember reading several articles online after bills had been passed to ban everything and why it was done. They wished to keep animals from harm and unnecessary abuse. It was getting rather crazy.

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the web. Especially not this. The reports about an animal sex market were fabricated. There were a few blogs by a scammer which claimed that many such groups would exist and that you could join if you sent him money. That may have been lucrative, but a lucrative scam, not an actual business. Anti-zoos took it for real of course and blew it out of proportion. Many magazines like to "report" about smut ... and there you go.

Also, there was no need to ban an animal prostitution business, since such a business wouldn't have been legal anyway.

 

[horseluv3r]

There's also no reason to ban sex with animals entirely.

Just ban sex with animals ... For money. You know, how prostitution is banned in a lot of places.

And keep animal cruelty laws in the books. If an animal is harmed through sex, that'd be covered under animal cruelty. There's no need to ban non-harmful sex, which very obviously there are many examples of on this site, lol.

 

[dogluver101]

Just ban sex with animals ... For money. You know, how prostitution is banned in a lot of places.

And keep animal cruelty laws in the books. If an animal is harmed through sex, that'd be covered under animal cruelty. There's no need to ban non-harmful sex, which very obviously there are many examples of on this site, lol.

Drugs are also banned... How many drug dealers still sell?
Even if you banned prostitution on animals, there will always be someone manipulating it that its not for the animal. Or just not be so open about it.
If the US wasn't so over dramatic on everything, I'd be all for making it illegal if harm is done.

 

[valleyyote]

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the web. Especially not this. The reports about an animal sex market were fabricated. There were a few blogs by a scammer which claimed that many such groups would exist and that you could join if you sent him money. That may have been lucrative, but a lucrative scam, not an actual business. Anti-zoos took it for real of course and blew it out of proportion. Many magazines like to "report" about smut ... and there you go.

Also, there was no need to ban an animal prostitution business, since such a business wouldn't have been legal anyway.

Yeah i find this explanation to be highly suspect due to the fact i found this article on several reputable news outlets. It would be in a countries best interest to lie about something that would in essence be unacceptable by the rest of the world. It is how you save face. I simply do not buy it. There was no mention of sending money to join anything.

 

[valleyyote]

I remember I lived within 5 miles of Doug Spink and if Mr hands would not of been killed that way the state would not have taken such a dramatic turn of anti-zoo legislation and Doug Spink would of been spared. A little off topic but I do believe that Mr hands tragedy caused the state to react because they felt like they had to do something to save face within the public eye. Just my opinion.

It was a major save face move indeed. They felt we were a disgusting blot on the nation as a whole. That much came out in all the depositions and discussions. Also you know there were zoos in congress who voted yes to save their own ass. None had the guts to speak up. This was not a legit, honest unanimous vote.

 

[Caniform]

Yeah i find this explanation to be highly suspect due to the fact i found this article on several reputable news outlets. It would be in a countries best interest to lie about something that would in essence be unacceptable by the rest of the world. It is how you save face. I simply do not buy it. There was no mention of sending money to join anything.

Well, then believe what you want to believe.
I'm used to people from the other side of the world thinking they know better about what happens here.

Just one advice for you ... if you find basically the same article on several reputable news outlets, then that usually means that none of them did any serious investigative research of their own. Instead, they probably processed information directly or indirectly from a single external source such as a press agency.

 

[milabue]

keep animal cruelty laws in the books. If an animal is harmed through sex, that'd be covered under animal cruelty.

Yup. Laws against sex with animals are based on religion or peoples' "ick" when animal abuse is already a no-no.