• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Anti-zoo laws getting worse (how to deal with them?)

That will really get the politicians quaking in their boots, sorry to be cynical but it’s never going to happen but I wish you well ?
 
I’m not saying anti zoo laws are right what I am saying is be realistic and stop the chest beating because they are not going to change
 
And what practical difference did it make ? Wren they suddenly welcomed into the community ? Did they have sex openly ? Did they tell there friends, family, employers, neighbours etc hey it’s ok now it’s legal to shag my dog//horse etc
I think not
 
Wasbitchpolly said:
And what practical difference did it make ? Wren they suddenly welcomed into the community ? Did they have sex openly ? Did they tell there friends, family, employers, neighbours etc hey it’s ok now it’s legal to shag my dog//horse etc
I think not
Click to expand...
Yes, they did. Zeta Verinin is a pro-zoo .org, and others came out. I know of zoo villages in germany. Thats the point, that zoos can do that without LE kicking in the door.
 
a small village in Germany isn’t representative of anything and I doubt the local politzei were kicking in doors to find some guy shagging his cow
I don’t like that it’s illegal but the point is illegal or not it’s not going to change me having sex with my dog
It seems to be like mass paranoia
 
Wasbitchpolly said:
a small village in Germany isn’t representative of anything and I doubt the local politzei were kicking in doors to find some guy shagging his cow
I don’t like that it’s illegal but the point is illegal or not it’s not going to change me having sex with my dog
It seems to be like mass paranoia
Click to expand...
It STARTS with a few villages in Germany. It has to start on a modest level, and it can't all happen at one time. When we do see small victories, we ought to examine what made those small victories possible and try to figure out where and how those victories can ever be replicated. Sweeping reform in only a single decade might be much to ask, but generational change on a local scale is something that happens a lot more often. We have examples of it happening, so if it does happen, let's concentrate on what the people that made it happen were doing differently.
 
Well I disagree but if your happy then that’s ok but when society as a whole looks on us with revulsion I can’t see it changing in my lifetime or even my children’s but good luck with it anyway and stay safe
 
Wasbitchpolly said:
Well I disagree but if your happy then that’s ok but when society as a whole looks on us with revulsion I can’t see it changing in my lifetime or even my children’s but good luck with it anyway and stay safe
Click to expand...
I totally agree with BP on this. Back before the laws started changing there weren't many people that openly admitted to having sex with an animal. And I've never heard a politician offer an opinion of anything that was going to end up losing votes. Never mind how right or wrong it is if it don't bring in more votes then they avoid the issue as much as possible.
As far as zoo as a sexual orientation I would have to say that it is no more of an orientation than pedophilia or necrophilia is. And even thou those 2 are illegal everywhere there are still groups here and there that are active into them.
In the long run most of us are not going to be challenging any laws and most of us will just be making sure our blinds are closed whern we do what we do. Plus we're not going to be going around showing pictures of ourselves in the act and we're not going to be bragging in front of people we don't know. All in all it's going to be a silent activity with most of us.
That's my take on it.
 
SigmatoZeta said:
It STARTS with a few villages in Germany. It has to start on a modest level, and it can't all happen at one time. When we do see small victories, we ought to examine what made those small victories possible and try to figure out where and how those victories can ever be replicated. Sweeping reform in only a single decade might be much to ask, but generational change on a local scale is something that happens a lot more often. We have examples of it happening, so if it does happen, let's concentrate on what the people that made it happen were doing differently.
Click to expand...
@Wasbitchpolly wouldnt help zoos anyway. She doesnt even accept zoo as an orientation.
 
Last edited:
Wasbitchpolly said:
Well I disagree but if your happy then that’s ok but when society as a whole looks on us with revulsion I can’t see it changing in my lifetime or even my children’s but good luck with it anyway and stay safe
Click to expand...
how about you go on with your daily chores like using a dog as a dildo
 
knotinterested said:
I totally agree with BP on this. Back before the laws started changing there weren't many people that openly admitted to having sex with an animal. And I've never heard a politician offer an opinion of anything that was going to end up losing votes. Never mind how right or wrong it is if it don't bring in more votes then they avoid the issue as much as possible.
As far as zoo as a sexual orientation I would have to say that it is no more of an orientation than pedophilia or necrophilia is. And even thou those 2 are illegal everywhere there are still groups here and there that are active into them.
In the long run most of us are not going to be challenging any laws and most of us will just be making sure our blinds are closed whern we do what we do. Plus we're not going to be going around showing pictures of ourselves in the act and we're not going to be bragging in front of people we don't know. All in all it's going to be a silent activity with most of us.
That's my take on it.
Click to expand...
Another one.

Boom. Looks like another who doesnt accept zoo as a valid orientation. Glad to see where everyone stands.
 
You better watch out its bitchpolly and her pro feminist gang - They can abuse dogs all they want though.

Also they dont care about the cos or the people who actually did something to oppose the bigot law making process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wasbitchpolly said:
My question again then , so what if it’s made legal ? Suddenly tell friends , workmates , family hey I have sex with an animal
Click to expand...

There are subtle things that would be different. People could bring up zoo in discussion without fear of being persecuted. People could also form organizations, such as "zoo conventions", without fear of law enforcement infiltration. True, most would probably still hide, but it would give people peace of mind to know that their actions won't result in them being arrested. Consider a situation in which someone gets caught having sex with an animal -- if there were no anti-zoo laws, there would be shame, but they probably wouldn't be arrested. It matters whether something is a "crime" or not.

ZTHorse said:
Wow there is alot of shaming language and pessimism in this thread. Im greatly disappointed to see this many who dont think its possible.

I do think it is, and its just a matter of time before zoo becomes atleast unlegal. A non-crime like it is in germany, japan and chile so long as no harm is done to the animals.

People dont realize we won in germany, the courts there on the down low reaffirmed the statue of zoo being legal so long as no harm is being done.

*shakes head
Click to expand...

Yes, I think there is too much pessimism (and defeatism as well). As far as law enforcement and so-called "animal" groups (like HSUS) are concerned, zoo is no longer "obscure" -- if it was, there wouldn't be all these new anti-zoo laws. I don't think the situation is totally hopeless, as there are many flaws in these new laws.

knotinterested said:
As far as zoo as a sexual orientation I would have to say that it is no more of an orientation than necrophilia is.

In the long run most of us are not going to be challenging any laws and most of us will just be making sure our blinds are closed when we do what we do. Plus we're not going to be going around showing pictures of ourselves in the act and we're not going to be bragging in front of people we don't know. All in all it's going to be a silent activity with most of us.
That's my take on it.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're comparing zoo to necrophilia. Zoo is a sexual orientation, necrophilia is not. One could say that society does not currently recognize zoo as a sexual orientation, but that's because of social stigma.

I keep waiting for someone, or some organization, to fight the anti-zoo laws in court, in the United States and elsewhere. Even overturning an anti-zoo law in one U.S. state (such as Arizona) would be a success. One argument: spaying/neutering doesn't involve animal "consent", yet is legal -- people argue that zoo should be illegal because it doesn't involve animal "consent" -- so then why are other things that don't involve their "consent" legal? (Irrational and inconsistent).
 
Last edited:
We could also create a scholarship for trying to put zoosexuals through law school, so they could help us with legal defense in circumstances where we have gotten into legal trouble.
 
Glad to see a reasonably calm discussion, but I have to say this....As of the advent of the internet about 30 years ago, the very IDEA of legalizing our little hobby( call it what you will, people....I REFUSE to call it a fetish) has become an impossible topic. we are, as actives, a small portion of the population, well under 10 percent, with sexual habits that are repugnant to most of the remaining 90-plus percent of the Pop. The internet has made it easy to find us, and too, easy to TRACK us, something we all better be thinking about. What we know about zoophilia, and the opposers do not, doesn't matter remotely, for the simple reason that we are outnumbered massively. " THEY'' have no need for what political power we can wield, and no particular desire to reach across the separation to bring us into the fold, except to convert us from our erring ways. There is a religious basis, and a deeper supernatural basis for the attitude they disport. It is rooted firmly in the fear of the unknown. In general, the idea they have is that we are behaving in a less-than-human fashion when we consort with animals. Add in that in some cases, we MAY be polluting their food stream, as some of the critters we engage with are in fact edible. Cattle and swine as well as various fowl are desirable as food, and in many religions food PURITY is an important part of lifestyle. " They " have nothing real to gain by allowing us our fun, and seem to think they've something to lose in the afterlife by doing us the simple service of ignoring us. The one thing we DO have in common with the gay world is that the Mundanes think we're contagious, and out to convert them to the dark side...and no amount of protestation of innocence on our part is going to change that. Some nations may be less prone to persecution, but it remains to be seen if that will continue to lessen, or whether the vast political swing to the right will win out. That swing, by the way, may well be a product of the passing of the second millennium; there is evidence that a similar fundamental shift took place at the end of the first one, circa 1000, Current Era.
I don't care, myself, a great deal. I neither publicly share my sexual proclivities, nor do I have a very long span of life left to me...I've been keeping out of the public eye for over fifty years now; I think I can keep that up for another twenty or so. For you younger folk....keep your own counsel, play it close to the vest, and don't whine about it. Sex was never intended as a Public Consumptive item. Let's keep it that way
 
Zoo50 said:
knotinterested said:


As far as zoo as a sexual orientation I would have to say that it is no more of an orientation than necrophilia is.

I can't believe you're comparing zoo to necrophilia. Zoo is a sexual orientation, necrophilia is not. One could say that society does not currently recognize zoo as a sexual orientation, but that's because of social stigma.

One argument: spaying/neutering doesn't involve animal "consent", yet is legal -- people argue that zoo should be illegal because it doesn't involve animal "consent" -- so then why are other things that don't involve their "consent" legal? (Irrational and inconsistent).
Click to expand...
First if you're going to quote me then don't cut words out because they prove a point that you're not willing to accept.
I said "As far as zoo as a sexual orientation I would have to say that it is no more of an orientation than pedophilia or necrophilia is. "
AND
Sorry but both pedophilia and necrophilia are forms of a sexual orientation and there are underground groups that practice both. Because orientation can be described as a persons feelings, interests, and beliefs according to the dictionary, then zoophilic behavior qualifies as an orientation.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said it wasn't a sexual orientation - However I wasn't comparing orientations - I was comparing the social acceptance and if you think zoophilic behavior is accepted socially then you seriously need to open your eyes and ears.
Next, The reason animal spaying/neutering is legal is because it helps to control the population and hopefully reduces the risk of unwanted animals and thereby reduces the number of animal deaths each year. And because there is no animal abuse involved society allows it.
Animal abuse it the root whereby these laws are being enacted in this time. The examples they use are always cases where a MAN has penetrated an ANIMAL, and the argument is that the animal CAN NOT and IS NOT CONSENTING. They never use a WOMAN/Animal because in that example a woman offers herself and the animal gladly jumps on this by his own action he is showing his consent. That fails to show any type of animal abuse at all.
Unfortunately when society as a whole deems something unacceptable then persons being affected most often tend to hide rather than fight what they think is a losing battle, not to mention the embarrassment of public knowledge that will come from fighting the issue.
Mind you that what you do is completely up to you and any of the above unaccepted orientations are your choice.
I'm not taking sides here, obviously I'm Zoo, but I'm just stating facts.
 
Zoosexuals can prove that their animals have good lifelong health, both emotional and physical. Not a single scientific study has ever proved that a human having sex with an animal, even every single day, causes that animal to show more signs of stress than it would cause them for another animal to mount or even outright have sex with them every single day, which does happen.

Even in the case of child-molesting, if we could prove it was good for them, then we would encourage it. As far as anyone can tell, though, that is not actually the case.
 
knotinterested said:
Next, The reason animal spaying/neutering is legal is because it helps to control the population and hopefully reduces the risk of unwanted animals and thereby reduces the number of animal deaths each year. And because there is no animal abuse involved society allows it.
Animal abuse it the root whereby these laws are being enacted in this time. The examples they use are always cases where a MAN has penetrated an ANIMAL, and the argument is that the animal CAN NOT and IS NOT CONSENTING. They never use a WOMAN/Animal because in that example a woman offers herself and the animal gladly jumps on this by his own action he is showing his consent. That fails to show any type of animal abuse at all.
Unfortunately when society as a whole deems something unacceptable then persons being affected most often tend to hide rather than fight what they think is a losing battle, not to mention the embarrassment of public knowledge that will come from fighting the issue.
Mind you that what you do is completely up to you and any of the above unaccepted orientations are your choice.
I'm not taking sides here, obviously I'm Zoo, but I'm just stating facts.
Click to expand...

First, neither of the things you mentioned are "sexual orientations". Zoo is a sexual orientation, but the other two are not.

Second, you're missing the point. Spaying/neutering occurs without the animal's "consent", yet "consent" is the very thing people demand when human-animal sex is concerned. If "consent" is not required for spaying/neutering, then why is it required for sex with animals? It is a hypocritical double-standard. Also, spaying/neutering ought to be viewed as abusive because it violates an animal's sex organs against their will. A human wouldn't want to be castrated, and I don't think and animal would want to be castrated either.

Also, a man having sex (penetrating) an animal is not abusive, and it is not "less consensual" than a male animal penetrating a woman. In the first case (example: man having sex with female animal), there are ways the animal can show consent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top