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

Cultural acceptance of bestiality is inevitable

Wolf2 said:
What did I just read
I mean dude, that’s a lot of violence. You had some serious problems if you thought those were okay reactions to what was going on.
Click to expand...
Naw, I don't take it he thinks his behavior was justified. He's explaining why he was tested.

That part's always bothered me, people telling me what their IQ is. "Oh, my IQ is 162, I'm a genius!" Then it turns out they got that IQ verification after a 10-question Facebook quiz. (So many people do that! They can't tell you the agency they went to, or the certified psychologist who administered it. Always ask for those details. And these two gentlemen, I take them at their word. I think we can take it for granted, they were authentically tested).

Example why you should ask? There was a girl with an IQ of "220" in my class. Repeatedly brought it up. But I think I've only ever heard of one person over 200, and I recall, that pretty much means "intelligent beyond measure."

Turns out, her mother determined this from a statewide standardized test her daughter took in 2nd grade at school. Her mother "did the math," you see. She saw the age level equivalency that her daughter scored at for vocabulary, seeing it was more than double her age. Figuring tested age over chronological age, she came up with that number. Well, what the hell. I kind of suspect that happens quite a bit.

When I found out *that's* how she arrived at the 220 IQ for her completely dysfunctional daughter (in high school now), with such a terrible social life, terrible experience with teachers and counselor, I just slapped my forehead, closed my eyes and sighed. Hoo boy. I wanted to shake the mother: "You totally fucked up your kid!" The high school counselor complained he couldn't help her, because she'd say things like, "You can't help me, because you aren't gifted, meaning you have no chance of understanding gifted kids like me." Yet, no sign she was gifted, though. Certainly not in her academic performance. Just continually using her mother's misguided sense of what IQ was to insist this is why her teachers couldn't teach her, why other kids couldn't like her, why she couldn't get a date to prom. She did okay. I mean, she wasn't stupid. But a 220 IQ? that's ... I'm not qualified to say, but I'm pretty sure she wasn't much more than slightly above average. Who knows.

People *can* be much humbler than that. Look. I was tested, too. Twice. A teacher believed I was a "genius" and had it arranged. Folks agreed. I was excited by the attention. Conducted by a psychologist from the Area Education Agency. My result was 144, just inside the high IQ bracket, but only moderately gifted, as genius doesn't start by some groupings until 160. We all thought that was cool (my mom and me).

But that and $3 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. IQ really isn't an indicator of anything. And it certainly isn't the way to win arguments.

It did mean I would catch on really fast without much effort in my courses at school. Pretty much was always no. 1 in any class. But consider the setting. It was like putting a race horse on a track and goading it to beat the other horses. Zoom! Ding ding ding... winner's circle!

Rest of life? No real advantage I can think of. Sort of pisses me off, because people expect more from you and you're embarrassed if you fuck up, if some "simpleton" puts you in your place. Ouch.

I compare it to having been given a Ferrari to drive from home to work and back. In normal traffic. Most days I never get up to the speed limit, let alone open it up, show what she will do.

And that I *can* get to the point faster, so what? The guy ahead of me in the 1950 International Harvester combine is still going to get there first if there's no passing lane that lets me stomp down on the gas. And even when there *is* a passing lane, sure, I'll whip past him in a cloud of dust -- just to be held up at a stoplight, get to watch him in my mirror catch up before it turns green. Or, I'll wind her up and skid into a ditch. He'll putt-putt by me laughing, or worse yet, have to come down in the ditch to tow me out.

When it comes to mental acuity, all I wished for my own children was that they have natural curiosity. That's so much more important. Nice to have both, but at least have that. Some of my favorite, all-time legends of academia were not "brainiacs," not considered geniuses because of high IQs. It was because of their curiosity and their diligence in chasing down an answer, their persistence: "I can't leave this alone. I have to figure it out."

That is NOT a rule of thumb, not the way it has to go. Genius isn't necessarily socially crippling. Some geniuses are so humble and accessible, so self effacing. You might not even suspect they are geniuses till they floor the shit out of you with how articulate they are. Stand there wondering to yourself, "Where the hell did THAT come from?"

As was said, works both ways. You IQ is no defense of sounding stupid, I suppose; and "sounding as if" they don't have a high IQ is no indication the other person is stupid. Language barriers, level of education, the hit-in-run situation we have in these forums where we didn't see all the arguments, or we just came from one and come upon a posting we'd read differently if we hadn't had our mind full of the other one.

In my case, it's like the farmer leaning on a tractor tire stares into my eyes doubting my intelligence and uses simple common sense enough to prove I'm wrong, and I'm looking left and right, trying to find a way out of this embarrassment: "You have proven *me* wrong?" It's HARD to swallow down my pride, admit I was being stupid and was being condescending, to say, "I was wrong. Sorry."

It's not just "I disagree" then. It's more like, "Oh goddamn... I was... wrong? Crap. You got me there. You're right."

My go-to consolation when that happens is to look that person who proved me wrong in the eye and at least say: "Awesome. Now I don't have to be wrong anymore. Thank you for helping me see that." I don't like to be wrong, but I would really hate to be wrong twice. No excuse for that, or continuing to be wrong.

Low or high IQ has nothing to do with having a respectable argument -- or, being "stupid" or "smart," in other words.

It only means I have the capacity to spot error more quickly than the established mean, faster than the mathematically calculated "average" person. But the town drunk on his worst night could possibly form a respectably sound argument. We really have to listen to his reasoning and his evidence. If those pan out, the argument itself wins, even if the guy is slurring words and staggering, making it hard for us to follow along.

Now... look at that right here. Look how LONG it took me to say that? It is a constant embarrassment to me, that my responses are so long. I have incredible ENVY of those who can come in and with a simple turn of phrase, maybe one or two sentences, make a completely brilliant response.

I have an IQ of 144, so I've been told. Yet look at this communication fail. If I had a little more time, I'd make this much, much shorter.

In general, everyone be kinder to people in the forums. I'll try to be, too. Because when *I* don't understand what another person says in here; it doesn't make *them* stupid.

If they really *were* stupid or deranged, then that's not a worthy opponent to climb in the ring with. I'll either lose because they show me up, making me look like a fool; or I'll just look as if I thought I was finally well-matched, capable only of "debating" with someone with seriously low mentally capacity.

Let's go with the "I disagree" that SigmatoZeta suggested. (God give me patience, sure. But please, first teach me to be courteous).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh and while we're on the topic -- and much more briefly -- a popular definition of "genius" used to be: "Genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple."

Huh uh. Nope. Don't buy it.

In my way of thinking, a genius sees complexity and recognizes it as complex, but the genius also recognizes what is actually very simple so much faster than the rest of us that we prefer to call that woman or man a genius. That way we don't have to call ourselves dumb.
 
Wolf2 said:
What did I just read
I mean dude, that’s a lot of violence. You had some serious problems if you thought those were okay reactions to what was going on.
Click to expand...
They had me on SSRI drugs at the time. I quit taking them, and after that, I was just weird.

The point was that my level of intelligence had nothing to do with the behavior.

I was 12, by the way.

The point is that those people were certain that the fact that we had a disagreement was evidence that my intelligence was impaired, and they turned out to be quite wrong about that.

If you deal with a disagreement with someone else by developing a sense of certainty that that person is beneath you and must inherently be at best an infant, then that is not really an acceptable way of dealing with disagreements.

Sometimes, people that are quite extraordinarily smart can have disagreements with each other, and even they can fling petty insults at each other like "You must be very STUPID!" I saw such a disagreement between two of the smartest men that hang out on this forum, the best that the zooey community has. I actually admire both of those men. A disagreement, though, is still just a disagreement. It does not really mean that the other guy is an idiot or a jerk. The words "I disagree" are two of the most deeply powerful words that I have ever learned. They should go on the same list as "please" and "thank you." It is much better to just say you disagree.
 
Last edited:
BlueBeard said:
IQ really isn't an indicator of anything. And it certainly isn't the way to win arguments.
Click to expand...

If the person argument is: You have An IQ below 70, youa re stupid a moron a dumbas a retard.

If you can prove or you know for a fact that your IQ is above 140, then you won the argument already.

Also, high IQ is a good indicator of high intelligence. High intelligence is useful for making rational factual arguments, getting hired in jobs, avoiding stupid mistake that could cost you your life, etc.

If you think high IQ is useless, is only because you don't know how living as a low IQ person feels like, and you will never know it.


FYI: I never use my IQ as an argument to win arguments unless the argument I'm trying to win is the person stating that I have a low IQ.
 
I am going to bring this back to topic because I let myself get caught up in drifting off into my views about how to address disagreements.

I just might be able to arrange a meeting with another zoo, today, in person, and if I can arrange that, I think that that in itself will be a great triumph.

The first thing us zoos have got to do is stop being afraid of each other. There is no reason why we ought to be.

We are adults. We can manage a healthy Platonic friendship between one zoo and another.

Before we can talk about investing in each other, we have to try getting to know each other well enough to think that the other is worth a white dime. It is nice to say that we already know that in the abstract, but to be perfectly realistic with ourselves about ourselves, we are not really about to behave in that way unless we actually try getting to know each other.
 
No modern culture has ever accepted zoophilia as an accepted practice. It's always been behind closed doors, and always will I'm a afraid.
 
The qualifier "modern" interests me. How is modern defined? And why would, what I think is going to be a very brief period of human history well after the dark ages, that period affect future development of cultures?
 
BlueBeard said:
The qualifier "modern" interests me. How is modern defined? And why would, what I think is going to be a very brief period of human history well after the dark ages, that period affect future development of cultures?
Click to expand...

Societies based on the European model, or western "christian" societies. As opposed to "heathen" cultures that may have had rituals or other zoo related practices.
 
Gemini75 said:
Societies based on the European model, or western "christian" societies. As opposed to "heathen" cultures that may have had rituals or other zoo related practices.
Click to expand...
Was it forbidden in Greek or Roman times? Generally people compare modern civilization's direction (morally, especially sexually) to be patterning similar to the increasing "decadence" of the Roman Empire. Even then, it's just speculation. So much we never take into account. Like, what Caligula did, or senators did, compared to the average citizen or farmer, doesn't seem to get talked about much. I don't trust a lot of the speculative comparisons and the consequent generalizations people project from them.

I usually watch things closer to what I can see in my own lifetime -- and that's an increasing acceptance of a widening variety of sexual preferences and paraphilia. I don't think we'll go backward, as people fear, back to prohibiting gay marriage, making laws against anal sex as sodomy, etc.

To me, the path is forward, and the trend is well-established that each time society got too extreme with its prohibitions, the rubber band snapped back. Society said, "Wait. Our prohibitions themselves are what is unnatural," then changed its mind toward acceptance/permissiveness. And since we are less and less a Christian society, why would that even be a factor, that no Christian-based society has permitted it before? Seems more an argument that we'd be more tolerant, not less.

Know what else has never been done in a "modern" society? Bestiality/Zoophilia has never gotten the attention of psychologists, who after serious study, no longer condemn it as "insanity" or lack of intelligence. And it's getting exposure in documentaries.

All I have to go on is the pattern I see of increasing sexual liberty in modern Western societies:
  1. Divorce becomes much more common/allowed.
  2. Masturbation is not something that makes you blind or sends you to hell. Healthy. Even encouraged. At the very least, expected.
  3. Not common anymore for people to wait until marriage to "consummate" it.
  4. People simply live together. The need for marriage itself is questioned. Common law gains legal protection of partner rights once reserved only for marriage. "Palimony," for instance.
  5. "Fornication" is almost an unheard of word, since people pretty much have sex with a variety of partners without treating it as a step toward marriage. Recreational sex is no longer all that demonized.
  6. Homosexuality makes progressively incremental steps toward normalization in our culture. Heck, every tv series pretty much has to include a lesbian or gay relationship.
I just see increasing liberties, sexually. Things once forbidden or illegal ... those restrictions are removed. Why would bestiality -- or from our perspective, zoophilia -- be treated differently? I think it's coming.

I think it's coming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueBeard said:
Was it forbidden in Greek or Roman times? Generally people compare modern civilization's direction (morally, especially sexually) to be patterning similar to the increasing "decadence" of the Roman Empire. Even then, it's just speculation. So much we never take into account. Like, what Caligula did, or senators did, compared to the average citizen or farmer, doesn't seem to get talked about much. I don't trust a lot of the speculative comparisons and the consequent generalizations people project from them.

I usually watch things closer to what I can see in my own lifetime -- and that's an increasing acceptance of a widening variety of sexual preferences and paraphilia. I don't think we'll go backward, as people fear, back to prohibiting gay marriage, making laws against anal sex as sodomy, etc.

To me, the path is forward, and the trend is well-established that each time society got too extreme with its prohibitions, the rubber band snapped back. Society said, "Wait. Our prohibitions themselves are what is unnatural," then changed its mind toward acceptance/permissiveness. And since we are less and less a Christian society, why would that even be a factor, that no Christian-based society has permitted it before? Seems more an argument that we'd be more tolerant, not less.

Know what else has never been done in a "modern" society? Bestiality/Zoophilia has never gotten the attention of serious psychologists. And they are no longer condemning it as "insanity" or lack of intelligence. And it's getting exposure in documentaries.

All I have to go on is the pattern I see of increasing sexual liberty in modern Western societies:
  1. Divorce becomes much more common/allowed.
  2. Masturbation is not something that makes you blind or sends you to hell. Healthy. Even encouraged. At the very least, expected.
  3. Not common anymore for people to wait until marriage to "consummate" it.
  4. People simply live together. The need for marriage itself is questioned. Common law gains legal protection of partner rights once reserved only for marriage. "Palimony," for instance.
  5. "Fornication" is almost an unheard of word, since people pretty much have sex with a variety of partners without treating it as a step toward marriage. Recreational sex is no longer all that demonized.
  6. Homosexuality makes progressively incremental steps toward normalization in our culture. Heck, every tv series pretty much has to include a lesbian or gay relationship.
I just see increasing liberties, sexually. Things once forbidden or illegal ... those restrictions are removed. Why would bestiality -- or from our perspective, zoophilia -- be treated differently? I think it's coming.

I think it's coming.
Click to expand...
Like a bad dream, the last thing I remember before gay marriage came to one state after another was: "It will ruin the institution of marriage!" "It's an assault on 'family,'" "It's the end of society!"

Next thing I heard? Lots of wedding bells.
 
Reconscope said:
I would call it imo zoophilia (meaning love for animals). The word bestiality sounds rough/rugged.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. We zoophiles prefer that term. But it's not zoophilia (the orientation) that needs acceptance. Almost all owners love their animals. Bestiality (the term in most common English use for referring to the act of human-interspecies sex) does. And other than spelling it out as sex with animals, it's the term the public knows and uses.

Far as I know, there are no laws prohibiting zoophilia, per se. Our sexual attraction to animals is neither here nor there. Public just doesn't want our "naughty bits" getting tangled up.

The public is, however, more and more realizing our naughty bits aren't naughty.

And if our bits aren't naughty... why does it matter whose bits they touch, if the animal is not being coerced or harmed? Bits is bits. None of them particularly all that naughty. That's all that's holding things up.

In fact, anti-bestiality laws have fallen once before, much for this very reason. In places like Washington state, for instance, anti-bestiality laws fell when anti-sodomy laws were repealed (1976). Sex with animals then became legal -- up until the Enumclaw incident (2005), when a specific anti-bestiality bill was rapidly drafted and passed into law, making sex with animals and the filming of sex with animals illegal again.

It went unopposed, having no sign anyone supported bestiality.

But the times, they are a'changin'. A groundswell of zoophilism support is beginning. It's not going away. It's going to keep increasing.

Matter of time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueBeard said:
Well, yeah. We zoophiles prefer that term. But it's not zoophilia (the orientation) that needs acceptance. Almost all owners love their animals. Bestiality (the term in most common English use for referring to the act of human-interspecies sex) does. And other than spelling it out as sex with animals, it's the term the public knows and uses.

Far as I know, there are no laws prohibiting zoophilia, per se. Our sexual attraction to animals is neither here nor there. Public just doesn't want our "naughty bits" getting tangled up.

The public is, however, more and more realizing our naughty bits aren't naughty.

And if our bits aren't naughty... why does it matter whose bits they touch, if the animal is not being coerced or harmed? Bits is bits. None of them particularly all that naughty. That's all that's holding things up.

In fact, anti-bestiality laws have fallen once before, much for this very reason. In places like Washington state, for instance, anti-bestiality laws fell when anti-sodomy laws were repealed (1976). Sex with animals then became legal -- up until the Enumclaw incident (2005), when a specific anti-bestiality bill was rapidly drafted and passed into law, making sex with animals and the filming of sex with animals illegal again.

It went unopposed, having no sign anyone supported bestiality.

But the times, they are a'changin'. A groundswell of zoophilism support is beginning. It's not going away. It's going to keep increasing.

Matter of time.
Click to expand...
Im glad you have hope this storm passes through. I hate slaughterhouses for this reason. Why is it ok to systematically kill but you cant develop a relationship with someone outside your species. Its hypocritical socially wise since science already shows slaughterhouses damage the empathy part of the brain that makes the individual depressed/stressed. Whats the enumclaw incident i havent seen that before?
 
They seized hundred of hour of zooporn made in that farm with those animals. Not a single time they could prove any animal abuse.
The law is obviously made to protect heterosexual dignity, not to protect animals from "abuse"
It is the same reason for why anti-gay laws where made, not beause gay sex was abusive, but to protect heterosexual dignity.
 
Last edited:
Heterosexual dignity?
What the hell is that?
Marriage?
Marriage has been under attack since the 1960s. First it was the swingers that were perverting marriage. Then it was the "Love Children" or "Hippies" with all their "Free Love" "Shacking-up" and their "Lack of Responsibility" that was causing marriage to suffer. Next came the "Gay Assault" on marriage. This is the one that truly perverted the meaning of marriage. Marriage was and is the joining together of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and family.
It will always be that to me no matter what others may say. In society today everything has gotten changed. They rewrite history books so they don't offend anyone but in the process they destroy the true history. e.g. The Civil War - so many think it was fought over slavery. Do you really think that the entire southern US would go to war to keep slavery when only 8% of the people living in the South at the time were owners of slaves? NO! The dates of the Civil War were from April of 1861 to May 1865 and The Emancipation Proclamation, which is said to have been a major cause of the war was declared by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. Two years after the Civil War had begun, and it was stated that it freed the slaves of the Confederate states in rebellion against the Union. The true reason for the Civil War was economic depression in the South that caused the Southern States to withdraw from the Union. Today if you want to research any history then go back to the Newspapers of that time and read in their archives.
Truthfully I think that Marriage is something for the boneyard these days anyway. 90% of them fail within 5 years. The only people that like marriage today are the divorce lawyers.
Next the question of bestiality being accepted by society.
The way society is headed right now I wouldn't bet that it will change course in this regard. But look back to the time when there were a lot of states that it didn't make any difference if you were or were not having sex with animals. Back then there weren't clubs for the zoo minded, nor were there weekend getaway places. Even swingers and nude beaches had their own little groups and places to go. Back then as much as today those that were into the zoo lifestyle were pretty much silent about their activities. If there were any private clubs then their secret has stayed a secret as far as I have researched. I have not been able to find anything more than the records surrounding the "Animal Farm" movie and Bodil Joensen.
There are a few porn films where animal sex, mostly with dogs have been produced but nothing really substantial. If the porn industry had pushed bestiality back then it might have made a huge difference today. But from what I have found the reason they didn't is because bestiality wasn't accepted very well and therefore they didn't invest into it.
As society loosens up it may become an acceptable thing but unfortunately I think that time is way in the future if at all.
 
Aluzky said:
They seized hundred of hour of zooporn made in that farm with those animals. Not a single time they could prove any animal abuse.
The law is obviously made to protect the idea of anti-zoo sexual pride, not to protect animals from "abuse"
It is the same reason for why anti-gay laws where made, not beause gay sex was abusive, but to protect anti-gay sexual dignity.
Click to expand...
FTFY. As a heterosexual I don't support either anti-bestiality (I'm pro-zoo, why else would I be here) or anti-gay activities or laws. I don't want to be associated with either of those two crowds, nor do they get anything from me.
 
Aluzky said:
We are in the same position as the homosexuals, if they can, so we can. It is not wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

We cant use the same play book as the LGBTQ did. If ya really want to change minds, start at the root of the problem. Folks whom think that critters arent independent beings with feelings and what not. Why not start changing that perception. And no i not trying to humanize animals.
 
Saying what you need to say anonymously is more than good enough in my book, as long as people see it. Publicly accessible forums are the best road to acceptance. It will all wear in eventually.
 
I'm absolutely certain zoosexuals will have an easier time in my lifetime. I truly feel so.
It's going to get worse before it gets better, though. There will be push-back after the first wave, and then it will begin to settle.
But I am so sure things will get better..!

I wanted to do something myself, so I dragged my tail over here to connect with others. It's a huge step for me, and building community is always good for any cause in need of support. It's not all that much, but it's something! And I can do it. So I will.

I hope I get the chance to do more in the future. Right now I'm way too shy, strangely enough.

Oh, and to the earlier talk about sexual education.. how I wish I had a book explaining how to properly have sex with all different kind of species. I was so scared of hurting others so long - not being sure if I could do things safely and had to gather scraps of info all by myself to come to the conclusion that it'll be just fine and I know the non-human persons well enough to engage.
Sex ed like that would also help some other more rough individuals to realize to be gentler or nicer or use better methods to have sex with their non-human partners. Sex ed like this would help animals, too!
 
how many of us would join a global movement, dedicated to protests in public fighting for our rights to be acknowledged and accepted? who would lead
 
Zoo50 said:
I think certain organizations, such the Humane Society of the United States (and the ALDF), are on a crusade to ban sex with animals in all U.S. states -- they keep pushing their bigoted, unethical agenda, and no one is stopping them (because there are no pro-zoo organizations). Similar anti-zoo organizations are pushing their bullshit anti-zoo agenda internationally.

I believe HSUS has literally been going from one U.S. state to another and getting legislators in those states to ban sex with animals. It's probably why Nevada, Kentucky, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio, Alabama, Texas, and others have all banned sex with animals in less than 5 years. (Also, in the past 2 years, California, Wisconsin and Louisiana made new anti-zoo laws).

Legally, things get worse and worse for zoos every year, in the U.S. and elsewhere -- and no one (and no organization) is doing anything to stop it (or fight it).

In the U.S., zoos who are caught may be put on a sex offender registry AND an "animal abuser" registry. (Animal abuser registry laws are brand-new -- in just the past 3 years, more and more states have been making "animal abuser" registries, probably due to activism by HSUS. Because most of society views sex with animals as "abuse", it is highly likely that a caught zoo would end up on such a registry, ruining their life.)
Click to expand...
No one is doing anything to fight it because advocating/protesting in support of Zoophilia will get you arrested, regardless of your 1st amendment rights.

The only way it'll become accepted and/or legal is if a Zoophile is elected president and they legalize it.

I think, and this is sadly a pipe dream, that we should create our own country where Zoophilia is legal.

Also, fun fact, beastiality is 100% legal in Japan.
 
Zoodude154 said:
No one is doing anything to fight it because advocating/protesting in support of Zoophilia will get you arrested, regardless of your 1st amendment rights.

The only way it'll become accepted and/or legal is if a Zoophile is elected president and they legalize it.

I think, and this is sadly a pipe dream, that we should create our own country where Zoophilia is legal.

Also, fun fact, beastiality is 100% legal in Japan.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it at all that ppl would get arrested for holding up signs with pro-zoo slogans on them? You in the USA? Can someone confirm or negate this?
In Germany the Zeta Verein has been advocating for zoophiles and WINNING. They've opened their mouths and kept bad laws from passing, they are a proof that advocacy is worth it.

There are also, like, dozens of countries where bestiality is legal!

Legality of bestiality by country or territory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
It's not impossible, and the tides will turn. We can't become passive or lose hope. This will happen..! Zoo's all over the world will have more rights some day if we keep up the fight.
 
HoundDogRuffDog said:
I don't believe it at all that ppl would get arrested for holding up signs with pro-zoo slogans on them? You in the USA? Can someone confirm or negate this?
In Germany the Zeta Verein has been advocating for zoophiles and WINNING. They've opened their mouths and kept bad laws from passing, they are a proof that advocacy is worth it.

There are also, like, dozens of countries where bestiality is legal!

Legality of bestiality by country or territory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
It's not impossible, and the tides will turn. We can't become passive or lose hope. This will happen..! Zoo's all over the world will have more rights some day if we keep up the fight.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm a US citizen. And that Wikipedia page is where I found out that advocating in support of it publicly will get you arrested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top