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

[Zoo50]

I propose that all "zoophiles" all get sent to Madagascar, and should be isolated to become a human zoo for civilized men to come and admire the degeneracy of human beings since world war 2.

Zoos are not "degenerates". When a human has sex with a non-human being, that is not a "degenerate" act. Interspecies sex (whether it involves a human or not) is not immoral.

Clearly you are an anti-zoo -- so why are you on this forum?

 

[IHO]

Clearly you are an anti-zoo -- so why are you on this forum?

I think that's exactly why they're here. Zoo-bashin'.

 

[Zoo50]

There is a bill in Hawaii right now that would ban sex with animals.

U.S. states that have made new anti-zoo laws in recent years (since 2014): Alabama, Ohio, New Hampshire, Vermont, Texas, Nevada, Kentucky, California, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and others.

 

[Pillar]

It's already been said - the main issue is that it shouldn't be outlawed because someone gets caught that person's life will be destroyed. Someone's life should not be ruined just for sharing intimacy and it would certainly be worth fighting for to change the "law" and make it "legal", but not by any zoos, there's just way too much to lose, not to mention bringing suspicion upon yourself for doing so. I've also noticed the "animal abuse" thing almost always being used as the excuse to outlaw it. But from what I've seen if they don't want it they will let you know on their terms - they'll show disinterest and go away. And if you insist on actually abusing them (being abuse because they already showed they weren't interested) they'll either shriek, bite or or give you a solid kick in the ass.

IMO either vets or people indifferent/friendly to zoos that aren't zoo themselves would probably be the ones to bring about any changes but those kinds of people are nowhere to be found.

Now most of the people that are already zoo won't be supporting any movements as it is. No one needs to know what they do in their private lives - and that's fine. One's sex life is a private thing, regardless of who or what you're fucking.

 

[Zoo50]

There is now a brand new anti-zoo bill in New York state. It would make ANY sex with animals a class A misdemeanor, and it would make sex with animals involving injury/death a felony.

With regard to anti-zoo bills in the United States, it simply never ends. New bills keep being made all the time and no one is doing anything to stop them.

It is very likely that HSUS or some other anti-zoo organization is behind all these new bullshit anti-zoo bills.

(Edit: while it's good they want to make injuring/killing an animal a felony, a vet could falsely claim that an animal was "injured" during sex, even if said animal was not injured. The vet could come up with a bullshit reason and people would listen to them. Also, criminalizing injuring/killing an animal should occur regardless of whether sex occurs. In other words, sex should not even be mentioned in a bill.)

 

[IHO]

Fucking hypocrites. Shall we talk about rodeos? Circuses? Dairy cows? Artificial semen extraction and implantation for human profit? Plow animals? Factory farms? Oh... but no loving sex... that's disgusting and wrong.
Yes... I fucking hate 98% of humans. I'd rather just hang out with dogs.

 

[Pillar]

Is there anyone with any good ideas on how to deal with this? The last thing this community needs is more of this.

 

[IHO]

I fucking hate 98% of humans

Okay... maybe "fucking hate" is a little strong, and I may have had a bit to drink before I posted that. Let's just say I'm not fond of the current state of civilization and mob-mentality that seems to be rampant - not just around zoophilia and responsible bestiality - but also where politics, gender and identity issues, renewable energy, etc., are concerned as well. People seem to go ballistic over the stupidest little things when really we should feel lucky and privileged to have survived on this rock in space for as long as we have when there are so many things that could easily scour all life from the face of the Earth in the blink of an eye. I don't understand why there is so much hate over so many things that really don't affect the haters in any way, and why there is so much fear and loathing of things people don't understand and/or can't relate to.

 

[sososo]

I'm with you there. I could see it if the animals involved were actually being abused. When I bend over and my dog jumps on and does his thing anyone watching could not deny the fact that the dog wanted to do what he did and was a willing participant and that there was no abuse of any kind.
This part may offend some but it has to be said; When it comes to a man penetrating a female animal the point of it being abuse is much easier to say. If the female animal were to back herself up and make contact and keep going for penetration that would show that the dog was a willing participant - but that does not happen when the sex is between a human male and a female animal. At least I have never seen any sex Human M/Female Animal where I could say that the animal was a willing participant, on the other hand when it comes to sex Human Female/Male Animal you always know the animal is willing.
That being said the Human Male/Animal Female sex that is giving the authorities the fuel to say it's animal abuse.

However this may be the case for dogs, horses and dolphins have 20x far more effective and undeniable forms of consent. Dogs are a little tough to decipher, but IMO if they are crying in pain, trying to get away, not very allowing, not wet, it typically means that the dog did not consent at all. Plus I feel like a simple test of seeing if the dog waggles its tail to see you vs if it doesnt look happy at all. If the dog gladly turns around to do the licking thing they always do to human male genitals in those videos, waggling their tales, I see it as the dog was indeed fine with it. Horses and dolphins however cannot be argued. Horses will kick at you/not flash their clit if they dont consent, and Dolphins will be very forwarding and they will be the reciprocaters of sexual interactions in order TO consent from what I've heard.

 

[Zoo50]

Is there anyone with any good ideas on how to deal with this? The last thing this community needs is more of this.

I don't know how to deal with all these new anti-zoo laws and bills. Legally, things keep getting worse and worse, especially in the United States (things are massively moving in an anti-zoo direction right now, with a dozen new state anti-zoo laws in less than 5 years).

If someone tries to fight these laws, wouldn't that cause the person to become outed as pro-zoo? And once they are outed as pro-zoo, wouldn't that lead to suspicions from the authorities? That's the problem with pro-zoo activism -- if one tries to fight new anti-zoo laws, it means that one's zoo life is no longer "private", which is like walking on very, very thin ice, to put it mildly. As @Pillar said, the best people to fight these laws are pro-zoo non-zoos (those who have nothing to lose), but the question is, where are they?

Anti-zoos have an unfair advantage, in that they can spread anti-zoo activism publicly as much as they want without the fear of being persecuted.

As @IHO said, these new anti-zoo laws are based on bigotry and prejudice, not rationality. (Also, anti-zoo legislators use anti-zoo propaganda as a justification for these new bullshit bills / laws). If lawmakers really cared about stopping "animal abuse", they would ban slaughter and hunting, which they have not. So the fact that they're not banning those, but are banning zoo sex, makes them hypocrites.

 

[Pillar]

As @IHO said, these new anti-zoo laws are based on bigotry and prejudice, not rationality. (Also, anti-zoo legislators use anti-zoo propaganda as a justification for these new bullshit bills / laws). If lawmakers really cared about stopping "animal abuse", they would ban slaughter and hunting, which they have not. So the fact that they're not banning those, but are banning zoo sex, makes them hypocrites.

These "laws" have nothing to do with rationality, but only their own "morality" which in its entire argument is absurd. They're simply trying to force onto others their "morality." To those people I say if they want to be "righteous" and "proper" people they can go do whatever they want with other like minded people but leave the rest of us out of your idealistic religious/moral shit, it's our own lives to live, not yours. You live your life as you want and we'll live ours as we want. (If only that were true.) I also posted this elsewhere but I noticed that a lot of the people trying to ban bestiality are doing so under the guise of "animal abuse." While at first they seem to have confused being zoo with zoosadism (and yes, once zoosadism happens it is animal abuse), the real issue is that they want to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to actual bestiality as they think the animals are being either "abused" (zoosadism is the abuse, not bestiality) or used as sex toys despite animals displaying whether or not they choose to have sex (if they don't want to have sex they'll usually fight back, I hear mares have a really nasty kick and some dogs bite, while if they do want to fuck the females will back themselves into you while the males get hard). They either don't comprehend anything different from their site or they just don't want to listen to the other side (most likely they just don't want to hear, it, they just want to get their way). What they also refuse to hear is that neither bestialists nor zoos will choose to cause harm to their animals. (Now I also wanted to say I am not against either hunting or eating meat, but what I am against is how those farm animals are forced to live horrendously. That is something I would like to see change but in all likelihood is hate to say this but it probably won't.)

 

[Zoo50]

These "laws" have nothing to do with rationality, but only their own "morality" which in its entire argument is absurd. They're simply trying to force onto others their "morality." To those people I say if they want to be "righteous" and "proper" people they can go do whatever they want with other like minded people but leave the rest of us out of your idealistic religious/moral shit, it's our own lives to live, not yours.

The question is, how are zoos supposed to deal with these unjust bullshit laws? Should zoos actively disobey them (by having sex with an animal in a place where it is illegal), or should they flee to one of the few remaining places where it is "legal"? (And the number of "legal" places shrinks every year).

 

[AmantePerro]

Most zoo people aren't the kind to play hardball, and I've seen this problem with many other subjects, that those who might cause beneficial change get destroyed by those who are afraid to stick their necks out. Not only do they fail to withdraw support from our enemies, they become the enemies of freedom for an illusion of safety. They even join with the enemy to get their piece of the pie while destroying everyone else.

 

[IHO]

The question is, how are zoos supposed to deal with these unjust bullshit laws? Should zoos actively disobey them (by having sex with an animal in a place where it is illegal), or should they flee to one of the few remaining places where it is "legal"? (And the number of "legal" places shrinks every year).

As a mostly law-abiding citizen, I am going to do what feels right and brings joy to my life, regardless of hypocritical laws related to my sexuality. I'll simply keep myself and any future partners I may have safe.
I'm not sure how to help the community IRL. As I've mentioned, I have doubt there are lot of non-zoos out there that would take a stand to help repeal these stupid, harmful, morals-based laws, zoos coming out to stand against it risk persecution and prosecution, and anti-zoos have the advantage of being able to be loud with a bundle of misinformation about abuse and cruelty derived from cases of abuse and cruelty with little balancing data from bestiality where people and animals are happy and healthy.
It really seems super unfair, and zoos are at a great disadvantage. It's too bad more positive data wasn't produced before the torch-and-pitchfork animal rights folks started vomiting bullshit on lawmakers, to keep their "fur babies" safe from those wretched perverts.

 

[dexterity4321]

I couldn't decide whether to post this in the "General" section or the "Zoo" section, but I decided to post it in the zoo section.

In the United States and elsewhere, the laws relating to zoo have gotten really bad over the past 12 years. There used to be around 25 U.S. states that did not ban sex with animals -- people could still be charged with "animal abuse" in those states, but the situation was better than it was now. The Humane Society of the United States has publicly stated they are on a crusade to ban sex with animals in all U.S. states -- and they are succeeding. Almost every year, at least one state bans sex with animals. In 2017, five states (Vermont, Nevada, Texas, New Hampshire and Ohio) all banned sex with animals at the same time. Now, as of 2019, 46 states have banned it. Kentucky made it a felony earlier this year.

Also, several U.S. states (such as California and Wisconsin) are trying to make their already-existing anti-zoo laws worse (for example, changing it from misdemeanor to felony).

Other countries have been banning sex with animals, notably in Europe, with only 3 EU member states having not banned sex with animals as of 2019. Several Mexican states have also banned it recently.

When are all these unjust laws going to stop? Has there been an attempt by anyone (or any organization) to fight these laws? Has anyone challenged these laws in the courts? There are a lot of logical issues with the laws that could be challenged (for example, one of the stated reasons for these laws, that animals can't "consent", is iffy because they can't "consent" to other legal things humans do to them, such slaughter, spaying/neutering, etc.)

It seems like no one is doing anything to fight these laws.

These laws are awful -- they mandate huge fines, long prison sentences, sex offender registration, prohibiting a person from owning animals again, etc. -- all unjust and discriminatory things to do to a zoo.

Update: as of November 2019, the following is a list of U.S. states that have made new anti-zoo laws since 2014: Alabama, New Jersey, Ohio, New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont, Nevada, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, California, Wisconsin. So, in less than 5 years, 12 states made bans (or worsened existing bans). In addition, West Virginia and Hawaii have anti-zoo bills.

lets put our money together and buy an island. we'll go by international law and be fine

 

[new_to_this_902jws]

A law can be passed on paper but enforcement varies from country to country. In some countries there is strong enforcement, but in others very little.

Some of the anti bestiality laws (particularly in Europe) were passed centuries ago, and are not necessarily reflective of attitudes today.

The laws seem to be getting tougher in the US and UK. They were tightened up recently in Germany.

 

[Pillar]

A law can be passed on paper but enforcement varies from country to country. In some countries there is strong enforcement, but in others very little.

Some of the anti bestiality laws (particularly in Europe) were passed centuries ago, and are not necessarily reflective of attitudes today.

The laws seem to be getting tougher in the US and UK. They were tightened up recently in Germany.

Germany? You're kidding? Please, links! (If you mean the beast porn restriction passed a few years back please clarify.)

 

[Animalman]

I couldn't decide whether to post this in the "General" section or the "Zoo" section, but I decided to post it in the zoo section.

In the United States and elsewhere, the laws relating to zoo have gotten really bad over the past 12 years. There used to be around 25 U.S. states that did not ban sex with animals -- people could still be charged with "animal abuse" in those states, but the situation was better than it was now. The Humane Society of the United States has publicly stated they are on a crusade to ban sex with animals in all U.S. states -- and they are succeeding. Almost every year, at least one state bans sex with animals. In 2017, five states (Vermont, Nevada, Texas, New Hampshire and Ohio) all banned sex with animals at the same time. Now, as of 2019, 46 states have banned it. Kentucky made it a felony earlier this year.

Also, several U.S. states (such as California and Wisconsin) are trying to make their already-existing anti-zoo laws worse (for example, changing it from misdemeanor to felony).

Other countries have been banning sex with animals, notably in Europe, with only 3 EU member states having not banned sex with animals as of 2019. Several Mexican states have also banned it recently.

When are all these unjust laws going to stop? Has there been an attempt by anyone (or any organization) to fight these laws? Has anyone challenged these laws in the courts? There are a lot of logical issues with the laws that could be challenged (for example, one of the stated reasons for these laws, that animals can't "consent", is iffy because they can't "consent" to other legal things humans do to them, such slaughter, spaying/neutering, etc.)

It seems like no one is doing anything to fight these laws.

These laws are awful -- they mandate huge fines, long prison sentences, sex offender registration, prohibiting a person from owning animals again, etc. -- all unjust and discriminatory things to do to a zoo.

Update: as of November 2019, the following is a list of U.S. states that have made new anti-zoo laws since 2014: Alabama, New Jersey, Ohio, New Hampshire, Texas, Vermont, Nevada, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, California, Wisconsin. So, in less than 5 years, 12 states made bans (or worsened existing bans). In addition, West Virginia and Hawaii have anti-zoo bills.

I agree anti-zoo laws piss me off. They are unjust, unfair, contradictory (in some instances), and the excuses zealots use to enact them or worsen them are lame. Things sure do look bleak right now. Hopefully that changes

 

[d3bbievictor]

public opinion is all that matters, we've never asked the public what they think, if we do, we could find it's higher than we think, perhaps 1 or even 2 in 10,

 

[Zoo50]

lets put our money together and buy an island. we'll go by international law and be fine

For that to work, one would probably have to be "stateless" (i.e. have no citizenship of any country).

Hopefully that changes.

The question is, how? No zoos are willing to come out and protest these bullshit laws because they're all afraid that doing so would put a target on their back.

 

[IHO]

I'm having trouble tracking it down, but there was someone who said if anybody attempted to take away their family (animals included) they would retaliate in the extreme.
I am right there, too.
I am, for the most part, a passivist. Live and let live.
However, if anybody with weapons ever came onto my property or invaded my home with intent to do harm to me or my family, if time permits I would retaliate.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I just live in an area where people are not really known much for extreme behavior.

Our Black Lives Matter protest was a prayer circle. A prayer circle is genuinely the closest you'll get to a riot in Raleigh. We're just not good at the whole mayhem thing.

Getting along with your fellow man is easy. Why is it complicated for some people?

 

[Pillar]

I just live in an area where people are not really known much for extreme behavior.

Our Black Lives Matter protest was a prayer circle. A prayer circle is genuinely the closest you'll get to a riot in Raleigh. We're just not good at the whole mayhem thing.

Getting along with your fellow man is easy. Why is it complicated for some people?

Have you ever been to one of the large cities with ample poverty? Those places seem ripe for riots if the status quo gets disrupted.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Have you ever been to one of the large cities with ample poverty? Those places seem ripe for riots if the status quo gets disrupted.

I think culture can play a role, but I would agree that poverty is a factor.

What I am more concerned about is other disruptive behavior. If a culture is one that is prone to rash hysterics, I think that this can lead to other rash behaviors.

Live somewhere peaceful and decent if you ask me. That is sound advice, whether you are zooey or not.

 

[IHO]

Poverty, lack of education, prejudice in law enforcement, etc.

 

[new_to_this_902jws]

Germany? You're kidding? Please, links! (If you mean the beast porn restriction passed a few years back please clarify.)

Bestiality was banned in Germany in 2013. Porn however was not banned, except for when its with the intention of selling, publicising or sharing.

Bestiality is still legal in a few European countries though.

 

[Tailo]

Only forced bestiality is banned in Germany.

Wikipedia is currently reporting the situation incorrectly. What Wikipedia reports changes from time to time. Few weeks ago it had still been correct. The problem is that there are both sources which say that only forced sex with animals is prohibited and sources that say that sex with animals is prohibited (which people then tend to interpret as all sex with animals being forbidden). There are actually more sources of the latter kind and their abundance has weight in Wikipedia. There are better sources that show that only forced sex is prohibited, but it is Wikipedia's policy to give the best sources less weight: Wikipedia wants secondary sources, not primary sources. So for example, if a court acquits you of a crime and a newspaper gets it wrong and reports that the court convicted you of the crime, then Wikipedia will give the newspaper more weight than the court's own published decision. Why? Because the newspaper is a secondary source and those are preferred over primary sources like the court's self-published decision. However, what should interest you as human being is that the court acquitted you and not that Wikipedia says otherwise. I think it's honorable when people invest their time into editing Wikipedia to report a controversial thing correctly, but in my opinion they are wasting their precious life time.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I think it is worthwhile to make it known that the German legislature really did not have the power to criminalize animal sex and that stories reporting otherwise are unambiguous lies. The problem with letting such a lie remain without refutation is that a lie, regarding such a matter, can become an effective reality. Employers will inevitably discriminate against people they believe to be criminals. Social venues will ostracize people they believe to be criminals. People that believe they themselves are criminals by nature can fail to recognize that they are still morally accountable, thereby leading to dysfunctional behaviors that give people a belief that it is right to regard the associated act as a crime, and otherwise intelligent people that know better, believing falsely that speaking out will get them convicted of a crime, will remain silent.

Getting the truth out is therefore powerful in its own right. Getting the truth out encourages zoos that have better moral judgment to be more vocal. It helps employers realize that someone who is not really a criminal therefore also is not such a serious liability. It helps social venues realize that a law-abiding citizen ought to be treated as a law-abiding citizen. It helps people keep on fearlessly spreading the truth about us and the idea that zoos must join all society in aspiring to be its best.