Imagine you can become a powerful figure in government, media, or some other place where you can have a large influence on society. You have the power to help zoophilia become more accepted by society. How would you do it? Would you pass laws? Create media that is accepting of zoophilia? Promote zoo-friendly sexual education? What would be your plan?
How would you promote zoophilia acceptance?
- Thread starter emp
- Start date
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
I would exclaim, "Shit! I somehow had a months-long bout of insanity when I ran for office while being a zoophile!" I would immediately resign, citing health concerns or some nonsense, and try to keep my head down.
Nothing any public official can do would promote acceptance of bestiality with how hostile things are currently. The only thing that would happen is them getting outed and arrested, their animals taken and perhaps killed.
Nothing any public official can do would promote acceptance of bestiality with how hostile things are currently. The only thing that would happen is them getting outed and arrested, their animals taken and perhaps killed.
Just assume you won't get in trouble for being a zoophile yourself. Just assume that the decisions you make will have no lasting negative consequences for you. What will you do to advance the zoophile cause?
K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I'd still go with my usual response. Which is the same response I give to any subject like zoo, trans, bi, gay, lesbian, drugs, and a whole host of other shit that falls under the umbrella of "if it isn't hurting anyone or anything (including critters), then I have no concern over what happens in the privacy of someone's home".
The zoo subject (as well as many other topics) has come up before in conversation with friends and such, and I always say the same thing. "I don't care, if nobody or nothing was hurt, then I don't care, and it's none of my business".
If they go on about it being "animal abuse", I simply say "Is it? Did you interview the critter?" And then go on to tell the story of my GSD jumping up on the bed while me and the wife were getting freaky and him thinking he was going to (quite literally and pun intended) insert himself into the situation.
It kinda catches people off guard, but neither myself or my wife invited him, and I just go on to say that the moral of that story is that I have personally witnessed an animal that has had no prior sexual contact with dogs or humans, initiate sexual conduct with a human with zero intentional influence to do so. He had clearly made up his own mind, and should he have been allowed to continue (he wasn't), could not have been "abuse" since it was what he clearly wanted.
And so no... I don't have any concerns unless there actually was harm done.
If people still don't want to take that answer, I follow up with "I don't want to be arrested if I choose to smoke weed in the privacy of my own home", which most folks these days completely agree with me on that, so I go on to say "so if I don't want people nosing into my personal business where nobody was harmed, doesn't it follow that I shouldn't nose into someone else's private affairs that again, nobody was harmed?"
And if they bring up the Bible and sin, I follow up with "Then that's between them and God. Christians are called to not judge. Remember the whole whole casting the first stone thing?"
I know this doesn't really answer your question.
But a start in that direction would be for public type officials to start respecting the privacy of the home in other matters, and maybe let it spread from there.
The zoo subject (as well as many other topics) has come up before in conversation with friends and such, and I always say the same thing. "I don't care, if nobody or nothing was hurt, then I don't care, and it's none of my business".
If they go on about it being "animal abuse", I simply say "Is it? Did you interview the critter?" And then go on to tell the story of my GSD jumping up on the bed while me and the wife were getting freaky and him thinking he was going to (quite literally and pun intended) insert himself into the situation.
It kinda catches people off guard, but neither myself or my wife invited him, and I just go on to say that the moral of that story is that I have personally witnessed an animal that has had no prior sexual contact with dogs or humans, initiate sexual conduct with a human with zero intentional influence to do so. He had clearly made up his own mind, and should he have been allowed to continue (he wasn't), could not have been "abuse" since it was what he clearly wanted.
And so no... I don't have any concerns unless there actually was harm done.
If people still don't want to take that answer, I follow up with "I don't want to be arrested if I choose to smoke weed in the privacy of my own home", which most folks these days completely agree with me on that, so I go on to say "so if I don't want people nosing into my personal business where nobody was harmed, doesn't it follow that I shouldn't nose into someone else's private affairs that again, nobody was harmed?"
And if they bring up the Bible and sin, I follow up with "Then that's between them and God. Christians are called to not judge. Remember the whole whole casting the first stone thing?"
I know this doesn't really answer your question.
But a start in that direction would be for public type officials to start respecting the privacy of the home in other matters, and maybe let it spread from there.
no need to fantasize on impossible scenrios --- you can do it now in some ways, for example, I go to arab animal breeding instagram pages where the share alot of animal fucking eachother, apperantly they like it, i find men and women there that post positive comments and I send them in Dm's animal sex site, I get positive responses 99% of the time
How is that promoting zoophilia acceptance?
M
MrsShemon
Guest
If I did anything to "promote" it while holding office, it would be to try and take away the law forbidding it, with "the laws against animal cruelty are enough" as the sole argument.
K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
This is kinda what I was getting at, but from a different approach angle.
People would freak out if you went after that law straight away.
But if you started with getting rid of other "invasive" laws, it might be easier to have that one get lost in the mix..
Actually that's pretty much how they get bullshit laws passed in the first place.. Just mix it in with some other shit that nobody cares about and poof, another bullshit law...
M
MrsShemon
Guest
Yeah. My neighbouring country did not have a particular law against it from when homosexuality was decriminalised (both was under sodomi) until 2014.
The minister responsible for the issue gave a very detailed description of how the act of beastiality could happen. He was very much in favor for implementing the new law against it, but his description alone made a lot of people try and "see the hidden message" and prove that he was a zoophile.
Trying to make it acceptable would be political and social suicide.
thats why the best way is starting from the ground to the up
pineapple9
Tourist
Best to keep bestiality forbidden. Forbidden makes it all so more worthwhile. We all enjoy being naughty. 
Reconscope
Supreme Citizen of ZV
Best way to improve such a topic is education as well as more informed observations while also investing translation technologies to understand what are our animal partners are thinking to improve communications.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I would invent some typical political tale about how disgusting this is, I would stronger the animal protection law, while in fact I would amend the law so that sexual intercourse would only be a crime if the animal is hurt. Otherwise no, normal sexual intercourse would not be law.
Most people are stupid, they wouldn't even notice the difference, they would be happy that it was "stronger" law. For those who are suspicious, I would just repeat that the punishment for animal cruelty has become stronger.
This is how average politics works anyway.
Most people are stupid, they wouldn't even notice the difference, they would be happy that it was "stronger" law. For those who are suspicious, I would just repeat that the punishment for animal cruelty has become stronger.
This is how average politics works anyway.
pet love
Citizen of Zooville
Dont forget. There are always those who will force an animal to do something that they dont want to do. These I would like to believe are the minority. This minority gives all ZOOs a bad reputation. Hence the laws against beastiality/zoophilia. I would like to believe that the majority of ZOO people treat their animals with kindness and love and that the acts they perform are mutually agreed too and that no party feels forced to participate in sexual acts. Also I would hope that no animal is deliberately hurt or injured in the process.I would invent some typical political tale about how disgusting this is, I would stronger the animal protection law, while in fact I would amend the law so that sexual intercourse would only be a crime if the animal is hurt. Otherwise no, normal sexual intercourse would not be law.
Most people are stupid, they wouldn't even notice the difference, they would be happy that it was "stronger" law. For those who are suspicious, I would just repeat that the punishment for animal cruelty has become stronger.
This is how average politics works anyway.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Yeah. This would be a solution to both problems, the punishment for sexual intercourse involving animal cruelty would be stricter, as I wrote. This would make nonzoo people calm down and not bother with the rest of the law hereinafter. Abusers would receive their more severe punishment. Win-Win.
Sex based on "consent" would be allowed, this small relaxation of the law, but it would be hard for non-zoo people to notice, there would be no outrage if the law is well worded.
Of course, it would be better to solve this issue with education and enlightenment, but considering the thinking, behavior and stupidity of humanity, the first solution would be much simpler, faster and more to the point.
PervertAnimalFucker
Tourist
Just as vegetarians claim that it is not in our nature to eat animals, people who have never fucked an animal in their life say it is not in our nature to fuck animals. They think that what the law and religions imposes on them is true. This is not true.
Imprison someone who is against interspecies sex in a room, don't let him fuck anyone for a long time, then put a horse in the room, he will fuck the horse with great pleasure. Everyone has a hidden zoosexual in them.
Zoosexuality is normal, pleasurable, and it exists. It will always exist despite all the impositions and pressures. We must do whatever it takes to get them to accept it and we should not be gentle about it.
We should make porn films that encourage interspecies sex as much as possible. Such that someone who has never fucked an animal should like it and be turn on when watching it.
For example, to a woman who has never had fucked with an animal, a male human and a stallion should look the same. After all, they are both male. What does the species matter?
Imprison someone who is against interspecies sex in a room, don't let him fuck anyone for a long time, then put a horse in the room, he will fuck the horse with great pleasure. Everyone has a hidden zoosexual in them.
Zoosexuality is normal, pleasurable, and it exists. It will always exist despite all the impositions and pressures. We must do whatever it takes to get them to accept it and we should not be gentle about it.
We should make porn films that encourage interspecies sex as much as possible. Such that someone who has never fucked an animal should like it and be turn on when watching it.
For example, to a woman who has never had fucked with an animal, a male human and a stallion should look the same. After all, they are both male. What does the species matter?
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Disagree. Just as everyone is somewhere on the spectrum for how much they are inclined to straight or gay sex, everyone is somewhere on the spectrum for how much they are inclined towards zoosexuality. For those who actually have zoosexual tendencies, going without for a long while might make them more willing to express those tendencies. For those who don't, it doesn't matter how long you lock them up. They just don't want to fuck animals. Ditto for asexuals and sex in general... although they'll typically already be going without by choice.
PervertAnimalFucker
Tourist
I'm writing this for fun, don't take it too seriously.
amorousdog5
Citizen of Zooville
Cool. I'll take a note that everything you write is BS.I'm writing this for fun, don't take it too seriously.
I don't know how someone could view some of the content on this website and then still not believe it's possible to have consensual human-animal relationships. There used to be this saying on the internet, "pics or it didn't happen". This website provides those pics and proves that it did in fact happen.
Of course, when a "normal" person views this material, their immediate gut reaction is complete and utter repulsion at the mere concept of what is happening.
I don't know if there's much hope in changing that.
Of course, when a "normal" person views this material, their immediate gut reaction is complete and utter repulsion at the mere concept of what is happening.
I don't know if there's much hope in changing that.
That'd probably be your best shot.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Here, a lot of people use Facebook, this saying has been transformed into such a way that "if it is not posted on Face, it did not happen".
there are enough of those films out there, the issue is how much do they reach
PervertAnimalFucker
Tourist
me - Imprison someone who is against interspecies sex in a room, after a while he will be interested in animals.
you - For those who don't have sex with animals it doesn't matter how much you lock them up.
me - OMG! Look at this, why didn't i think of this?
I seriously don't believe you commented. I think you're taking this bullshit too seriously. Anyway, I can't take your bullshit any more seriously. For me too, your opinions about me BS. I will note that too.
Last edited:
I would immediately start rethinking my life choices and trying to get out of there. Unless it happened for some other reason, in which case I would not be risking jeopardizing said reason to promote zoophilia. Although I'm pretty scared of the agencies performing seizures, so I would likely look into that. Further actions depend on initial intel gathering. Our second best defense (after laying low) is a high bar for legal action, competent justice system and rooting out corruption.
No, this is not "just". For that to happen, the world would have to be a completely different place. A place I don't know. And as such, can't make good informed decisions about.
No, this is not "just". For that to happen, the world would have to be a completely different place. A place I don't know. And as such, can't make good informed decisions about.
Franny&Zooey
Citizen of Zooville
You are missing the whole point of the question. This isn't about how you would protect your ass, this is just asking what you would do to make zoophilia more accepted if you had the power to do something and didn't have to worry about it biting you in the ass. Just assume nothing bad can happen to you.
nekdoneco123
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
if i had the power, would banning or publicly shaming any other kind of sex be too much? i'd at least outlaw (or break the perpetual myth of necessity) non-health related mutilations (spays/neuters)
nekdoneco123
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
oh, maybe more subtly and just turn the totally legit "1 in 100 pap smears contains dog sperm" story into an ad of sorts? just to normalize things a little?