pferdefreund
Citizen of Zooville
Just give me the name of one here, you know, for convenience.
Just give me the name of one here, you know, for convenience.
pferdefreund
Citizen of Zooville
Except there is going to be no case where "they" (i.e. the specific judge in that case) will decide that "no coercion" whatsoever was used.
And oh it's just an Ordnungswridigkeit - with one of the heftiest fines for "Ordnungswridigkeit" possible - at least to my knowledge.
Right after that was published, Zetaverein were the sole people to say "we won". Everyone else published that they lost. And laws are a matter of interpretation, so take what everyone else read into that text as what is going to happen in every case.
C
c9a
Guest
Before you moan about these new laws, ask yourself why they were made? Fausty got his share or the doubtful honor and fencehoppers being caught or spotted with their pants down in places where they shoud never have been in fist place. What would the common "zoo" believe if all anti zoo laws were lifted? That every creature in a pasture,pen, or barn becomes a legal fuck oblject? That they can do it on Times Square with their dog? Every single one of those laws were asked for by "zoos" who never will understand the world around them.
You are so wrong! You can't say that zoo is a sexual orientation and pedophilia and necrophilia are not. You're closing your mind to the fact that these two exist and that there are people to take part in those activities just like people take part in zoo activities. By taking part I do mean that a sexual event takes place. Some do it in private some in groups
The most lenient definition is from Psychology Today and it says that sexual orientation is the interest, desire or participation of sexual conduct.
As far as your example, it's not very good because there are 2 sides, on 1 side the animal can consent, on the other side the animal is at the mercy of the owner. "Spaying/neutering occurs without the animal's "consent", yet "consent" is the very thing people demand when human-animal sex is concerned."
When the sex is a human female offering herself to an animal and the animal penetrates and completes the act the animal has consented.
When the sex is human male penetrating an animal many times from what I've seen (Mainly dogs) the animal seems to be trying to get away with the man holding them. The animal NEVER pumps back which would show consent. So in this case the animal is at the mercy of the owner since consent can not be shown.
No, you're wrong. I already explained why zoo is a sexual orientation and the others are not, so I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want, you can read this academic article, posted in the Zooville resources section, explaining why zoo is not related to other philias:
Zoo Research and Data - Academic Defending Zoophilia - "Prohibiting Bestiality is plagued by irrational inconsistencies "
Source - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....9&download=yes A very important paper written by a non-zoo that takes up all the common arguments against prosecuting bestiality. A key point of relevance is from below... -Author distigushes...
www.zooville.org
With spaying/neutering, the animal is at the mercy of the person cutting off their genitalia / spaying them, and occurs without consent.
Also, you say that men who penetrate animals do so non-consensually -- does that mean you think a large chunk of the zoo population behaves in an unethical manner?
Last edited:
I've tried explaining the orientation thing to you but you keep on insisting that you are right. You ignore what sexual orientation actually means and as long as that happens you will always be wrong while you believe others are wrong. I'll leave you in your ignorance.No, you're wrong. I already explained why zoo is a sexual orientation and the others are not, so I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want, you can read this academic article, posted in the Zooville resources section, explaining why zoo is not related to other philias:
Zoo Research and Data - Academic Defending Zoophilia - "Prohibiting Bestiality is plagued by irrational inconsistencies "
Source - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....9&download=yes A very important paper written by a non-zoo that takes up all the common arguments against prosecuting bestiality. A key point of relevance is from below... -Author distigushes...
With spaying/neutering, the animal is at the mercy of the person cutting off their genitalia / spaying them, and occurs without consent.
Also, by saying that "men who penetrate animals" do so non-consensually, you're basically calling a large chunk of the zoo population rapists.
"Also, by saying that "men who penetrate animals" do so non-consensually, you're basically calling a large chunk of the zoo population rapists." These are Your words Zoo50 They ARE NOT mine.
YOUR INABILITY OF SOUND REASONING AND INTERJECTION OF YOUR OWN WORDS WHILE CLAIMING THEY ARE MY WORDS HAS LEAD TO THE END OF THIS CONVERSATION AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED. I WON'T WASTE ANY MORE OF MY TIME. GOOD LUCK IN YOUR ENDEAVORS
Just a reminder, typing in all capital letters is the equivalent of screaming in real life. Screaming does nothing to win an argument. Did you take a look at that academic paper (in the resources section)?
The term "sexual orientation" means an attraction to men, women, or animals -- it does not include philias like necrophilia.
I would like this thread to get back to the original discussion -- about how the number of anti-zoo laws is growing, and what can be done to stop it (or fight against it).
Last edited:
Wasbitchpolly
Prized Citizen of ZV
They are very good at putting words into mouths and twisting things out of context
Wasbitchpolly
Prized Citizen of ZV
An academic paper from one man is meaningless , I wonder how many there are that say otherwise
Wasbitchpolly
Prized Citizen of ZV
This is an old argument that keeps getting rehashed and gets nowhere least of all getting anti zoo laws changed
Your energies would be better directed at not getting caught
I’ll leave you to it now but above all stay safe,
Your energies would be better directed at not getting caught
I’ll leave you to it now but above all stay safe,
saddlebum66
Supreme Citizen of ZV
Indeed it IS a hypocritical distinction, but nut-cutting and spaying do not impact the food stream, nor are there religious or supernatural connotations to the act. In fact those practices have been considered good Animal Husbandry, since there even was such a concept. Secondarily,consent to penetration is no different than consent to BEING penetrated. Contending that there IS is sexist. Women can really only do one, while men can do either, tis true, but there is no real distinction at law or in Religion. Canada made a very odd sort of law some years back, but in application it really isn't different.
The Primary difference between an Orientation and a Paraphilia seems to be the atypicality of the practice...Thus Heterosexuality is an orientation, while bestiality is a Paraphilia. The idea of consent among the mundanes is an obsession, because they can think of no useful argument to muster against animal sex. There IS no official definition that fits all situations.
No one wants to see little Fluffy or Spot get screwed by a big bad ol' human. No one wants to think that someone MIGHT have done that chicken before it was cut up for market...or to think those pork chops were made impure by human sexual interference. I sure don't, and I'm not the "Opposition"....but those are factors we're up against. Add in the idea that Humans are supposed to be better than that, and that it smacks in some minds of Witchcraft, and the dice are loaded and the deck is stacked. We need to get used to it
The Primary difference between an Orientation and a Paraphilia seems to be the atypicality of the practice...Thus Heterosexuality is an orientation, while bestiality is a Paraphilia. The idea of consent among the mundanes is an obsession, because they can think of no useful argument to muster against animal sex. There IS no official definition that fits all situations.
No one wants to see little Fluffy or Spot get screwed by a big bad ol' human. No one wants to think that someone MIGHT have done that chicken before it was cut up for market...or to think those pork chops were made impure by human sexual interference. I sure don't, and I'm not the "Opposition"....but those are factors we're up against. Add in the idea that Humans are supposed to be better than that, and that it smacks in some minds of Witchcraft, and the dice are loaded and the deck is stacked. We need to get used to it
Wasbitchpolly
Prized Citizen of ZV
They won’t get used to it though, they live in an airy fairy land and no reasonable argument is valid and they’ve hinged their argument on sexual orientation on junk science from some unknown who isn’t a zoo/beast and correlated his theory from internet polls and as we all know the internet is a trusted source !!
And god forbid a woman has an opinion on the subject, we are instantly attacked as feminists and worse by ........better stop as I’m trying to be reasonable
And god forbid a woman has an opinion on the subject, we are instantly attacked as feminists and worse by ........better stop as I’m trying to be reasonable
Wow. Im not surprised. @Wasbitchpolly and @knotinterested both now only believe that male animals can consent to sex.
You both are bigots in my book. Why do you even come here? Attention seeking?
Because going on to a lgbt site denying their orientation is basically what you are doing here with this zoo site. This isnt some kink for us, this is everyday life.
Atleast antis are open about it, and id rather have my opponents infront of me instead of some judas like you two are.
You both are bigots in my book. Why do you even come here? Attention seeking?
Because going on to a lgbt site denying their orientation is basically what you are doing here with this zoo site. This isnt some kink for us, this is everyday life.
Atleast antis are open about it, and id rather have my opponents infront of me instead of some judas like you two are.
Nope, ive given you enough free research and my time. Its out there if you want it.
Like it or not, the german court has defaulted to the old interpretation of the past noncrime of zoo. They have to prove harm and that is fair. Its the logical way to do zoo law.
Wasbitchpolly
Prized Citizen of ZV
Stop. Just stop. You already outed yourself as anti-zoo.
I have attempted to debate you, so has others and provided references from academic sources. You are arguing like a child. Refrain from this and make a cohearent statement or i will ask you to stop posting on this thread for taking it off topic.
Wasbitchpolly
Prized Citizen of ZV
Ha so you’ve no answer , you haven’t debated at all just made up something I’ve never said !! I’m quite happy to leave this topic
That isnt a cohearent statement. Warning awarded.
Please dont come back.
Also i have debated her, its in the history here
Back on to actual discussion.
The legal framework in those legal countries has been this
1. It has to be your own animal because they are treated as property. Fence hopping would be the violation of someone elses property. So you could still be prosecuted under some form of violation of property law, but if no harm was done, it isn't an animal cruelty charge. If provable harm is done, then the cruelty charge would be stacked on top.
2. Zoo overlaps also with the animals as property ideal behind the laws too. You should be able to do freely with your property, not to say zoosadism should be allowed, quite the opposite, but bestiality is an expression of that freedom because AI is a freedom. (so long as no harm is done to the animal)
3. Anti-zoo laws hurt animals more because zoos cannot report zoo-sadists in their mists because of leverage of LE against both the innocent zoo and the harmful sadists.
pferdefreund
Citizen of Zooville
You have to admit it is a major difference in appearance if you say "oh, they have zoo villages in Germany" like it was a model village. But if prompted instead of typing the village name of just one of these, you can't do that. Instead you write a verbose bs explanation why you cannot type 12 characters which you pretended to have ready in mind.
So in reality it's likely one guys farm and theres like two of his friends with him, right? Great proof you have there.
You know "villages" i was referring to was when LGBT folk starting their own spaces before legalization. They would buy duplexs or run apartments and only rent to fellow LGBT people. Thats what i'm talking about, community. They also ran restaurants, bars and other stuff that was catered to LGBT people first.
Village definition - "a group of houses and associated buildings"
If a couple of zoos live together, yeah thats a village. Its not a big one, but there is many pockets of them. Don't try to pretend that legalization didn't help this, because it did. It's also helping more form.
pferdefreund
Citizen of Zooville
Well, that's a commune or Kommune.
I've always heard it as village in the states. Like, hey did you see the village that popped up on that property?
Commune has always meant some sorta hippy-trippy united greeny kinda thing here. For communists. XD
pferdefreund
Citizen of Zooville
A cooperative would be a genossenschaft in German, which - speaking of legal framework - would have to be registered which surely wouldn't call anybody to attention if you center it specifically around "zoo". After Zetaverein never managed to get the legal "e.V.", a cooperative for zoo would also certainly never be admitted to the register and thus enjoy tax freedom on their (to be reinvested) surplus earnings. And that's not what he meant when he started that Germany has "zoo villages" 'because it's legal there'. - By the way, if it's so legal, why does Zetaverein not have the "e.V." now?
But whatever, I am out of here. A simple google news search finds you all the people who were legal-ized in the utmost best way recently in the ohsolegal Germany. Y'all do as you please with these information.
But whatever, I am out of here. A simple google news search finds you all the people who were legal-ized in the utmost best way recently in the ohsolegal Germany. Y'all do as you please with these information.
Yes I didn't mean a legal entity like incorporated land here would be a city or town. I meant villages as zoos coming together to form community outside of the legal entity of incorporation. Which i dont care about the legal "town" part as zoos making their own villages because zoo is legal and lets them do so without getting arrested.
The problem with this is they will simply get an "expert" to agree with them that harm was done. It happened to a friend of mine.
In germany? Have the news article on the bust?
One thing that needs to be addressed in the law is the improper use of "animal abuse" laws to charge/arrest people in jurisdictions with no anti-zoo law. For example, before New Hampshire made its anti-zoo law, a man was caught engaging in sexual activity with animals (indirectly -- police found evidence on his computer linking him to Beast Forum). He was arrested and charged with "animal cruelty", even though no actual cruelty occurred. When the case went to trial, the bigoted jury decided he was "guilty", and he was sentenced to prison. This is the kind of thing that should not happen.
And you're right -- if AI (artificial insemination) involves dealing with animal genitalia without their "consent" (and is legal), then why is sex with animals not legal? I bet these discussions are not even raised when making new anti-zoo laws.