In the US, we'll have to fight it in the courts

[KittyInHeat]

This topic is most likely going to go back and forth forever. Would it be nice to have zoo legal even if you choose to remain anonymous? Yes but trying to find a lawyer willing to represent you let alone a judge willing to hear any possible case is near impossible. Any lawyer who did take a beast case would probably lose their job and be investigated even if they are not a zoo themself. And if a judge did grant the appeal the same thing would probably happen to them. It sucks but life is not fair. After all look at prostitution. It is still illegal most states even though it is two consenting humans. I don't see that changing either.

 

[mares4me]

Well, I do have one more thing I should say.

If you can continue to show kindness and respect toward others, and win over the hearts of your peers, you will have no opposition. At that point, there will be no reason to keep zoophilia illegal.

Be good to others, and they will reciprocate.

 

[UniqueAmerican]

You cite Lawrence v. Texas. Unfortunately, from what I remember reading, a zoo attempted to use the argument of a right to privacy, but the prosecutors easily outmaneuvered this particular defendant, ruling his argument irrelevant. I agree that it will be at least half a century until legitimate strides will be made to make zoosexuality acceptable. Someday I want to join that fight...

 

[Zoo50]

You cite Lawrence v. Texas. Unfortunately, from what I remember reading, a zoo attempted to use the argument of a right to privacy, but the prosecutors easily outmaneuvered this particular defendant, ruling his argument irrelevant. I agree that it will be at least half a century until legitimate strides will be made to make zoosexuality acceptable. Someday I want to join that fight...

I think people on this forum should brainstorm various arguments for why zoo sex should be legal.

 

[silkythighs]

You cite Lawrence v. Texas. Unfortunately, from what I remember reading, a zoo attempted to use the argument of a right to privacy, but the prosecutors easily outmaneuvered this particular defendant, ruling his argument irrelevant.

LVT is irrelevant for zoo's. Lawrence v. Texas was a case about sodomy. (Homosexual sex) The case ruled that consenting adults had the right to sexual privacy. This wasn't a case about "any or all" sex, but specifically about homosexual acts performed by consenting adults.

 

[silkythighs]

I think people on this forum should brainstorm various arguments for why zoo sex should be legal.

Useless endeavor. I've said it before and it looks like I'll have to say it again. "The only accepted sex in our society, is that between consenting adults."

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Again, gay sex was considered, by most people, to be literally synonymous with "pedophilia" up until the late 1970's, and nobody running for mainstream political office dared to touch gay rights directly because they knew that it would just constitute throwing away their political careers.

Do not let it get forgotten how difficult the push for gay rights really was. It took half a century if not more, and we are still working on it.

 

[Wasbitchpolly]

A man walks into a bar and shouts “hey fellas it’s now legal to have sex with animals”
as he sinks to the floor under a hail of boots and fists he mumbles through broken teeth “ but it’s legal now”
?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

A man walks into a bar and shouts “hey fellas it’s now legal to have sex with animals”
as he sinks to the floor under a hail of boots and fists he mumbles through broken teeth “ but it’s legal now”
?

Us gay people still have that problem at some venues. In fact, homophobia in the United States is still a real thing, and homophobic violence is still real. We have just spent enough time fighting back against it that at least some of us can grow up without any lifelong emotional trauma. You have no idea how many decades of labor it really took.

It wasn't given to us by natural law. It isn't something special or different about us. We worked our asses off for it.

It's something that anybody can do if they want it badly enough. You don't even have to be worth a damn. Just want it enough to labor and to fight and to sacrifice for it. Want it enough that you don't care if somebody actually does kick your ass and still don't regret it if they do kick your ass. Want it with everything in your soul.

This is something that takes time, but it is doable.

 

[silkythighs]

Again, gay sex was considered, by most people, to be literally synonymous with "pedophilia" up until the late 1970's, and nobody running for mainstream political office dared to touch gay rights directly because they knew that it would just constitute throwing away their political careers.

Do not let it get forgotten how difficult the push for gay rights really was. It took half a century if not more, and we are still working on it.

Yes but gay rights has nothing to do with zoo. Zoo is sex between a human and non human animal, normally a "pet". Gay sex deals with two consenting adults. Again two different things in the eyes of the courts. Lawrence v Texas for instance, wasn't about gay sex. It was about the right of two consenting adults for sexual privacy.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Yes but gay rights has nothing to do with zoo.

We are the same species, and the methods that actually work to win over a society are still the same. Pretending that we are aliens from a different planet or something is not only self-defeating, but it is actually stupid. The rules for getting along with human society are still the same, and they will always remain the same.

Regardless of what you are attracted to, no matter how much you might prefer it otherwise, you are still just a naked ape.

 

[silkythighs]

Sorry but we're not apes, we're human beings. Apes and humans diverged a long long time ago. "Naked ape" is really quite a childish statement IMO. It's statements and beliefs like those that make zoo advocates look like nutcases.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Sorry but we're not apes, we're human beings. Apes and humans diverged a long long time ago. "Naked ape" is really quite a childish statement IMO. It's statements and beliefs like those that make zoo advocates look like nutcases.

You are hilarious.

Desmond Morris was a respected mid-20th Century zoologist and ethologist. His book The Naked Ape (1967) was one of the 20th Century's most important works of scientific literature that helped to bring scientific awareness into the public consciousness. Amusingly enough, he published another book in 1969 named The Human Zoo.

But okay, bro, think what you are going to think.

 

[silkythighs]

Sorry but you and I are Homo Sapiens. Apes are still just apes (Hominoidea) and (Hylobatidae)
Besides Dr. Morris was a zoologist, not an anthropologist, and as such was making radical speculations by defining man in purely zoological terms.

Anyway again none of this is relevant to any legal battles a zoo will face if/when outed.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Sorry but you and I are Homo Sapiens. Apes are still just apes (Hominoidea) and (Hylobatidae)
Besides Dr. Morris was a zoologist, not an anthropologist, and as such was making radical speculations by defining man in purely zoological terms.

Anyway again none of this is relevant to any legal battles a zoo will face if/when outed.

So at this point, you are so obsessed with contradicting me, apparently, that you are trying to deny that Desmond Morris was one of the most celebrated and respected and culturally influential scientific writers of an entire generation. I just want to be clear about that.

The same principles of human behavior, which we have known about ever since the advent of sociology as a scientific discipline, always apply. We have been getting increasingly familiar with this ever since Durkheim. Those pinciples are not about to change.

What actually can change is whether or not a community, such as the gay community or the zooey community, accepts those principles and chooses to learn how to use those principles to promote their own self-interest. What can change is for us zoos to accept the human race for what they are and learn how to get along with them.

 

[silkythighs]

I'm not obsessed with contradiction you or anyone. I'm arguing/disagreeing with your points of view.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I'm not obsessed with contradiction you or anyone. I'm arguing/disagreeing with your points of view.

No, you realized that you had gotten yourself backed into a corner by trying to ridicule me over using a term that was actually coined by a respected 1960's zoologist that was a pioneer in a certain branch of interdisciplinary research that only exists at all because of his writings. You can take back your taunt or not. I will not pursue you over it anymore.

My point remains, a minority group like ours still has to follow the same rules as any other minority group if we want to succeed at getting along with human society. It is not really all that hard if you just accept the human race for what they are and accept having to work within their limitations of character, rather than fighting those limitations. They are the same animal they were in the 1950's.

 

[Zoo50]

Useless endeavor. I've said it before and it looks like I'll have to say it again. "The only accepted sex in our society, is that between consenting adults."

"Consent", when it comes to animals, is not applicable the same way it is with humans. That's why people do all kinds of things to animals without their "consent" (slaughter, spaying/neutering, artificial insemination, etc.) The fact that people apply "consent" to animals having sex with humans, but not the other things mentioned, means anti-zoo laws are irrational and inconsistent.

Sorry but we're not apes, we're human beings. Apes and humans diverged a long long time ago. "Naked ape" is really quite a childish statement IMO. It's statements and beliefs like those that make zoo advocates look like nutcases.

You're wrong. Humans are just "naked apes", and there is nothing special about them (morally). Also, the term homo sapiens refers to a kind of ape. From Wikipedia:

"Humans (Homo sapiens) are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina. Together with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, they are part of the family Hominidae (the great apes, or hominids)."

So humans are apes, and it is ignorant to claim that they aren't. The family Hominidae includes both humans and gorillas (and that group is referred to collectively as "the great apes").

 

[Puhp]

Interesting thread, but it seems to have become about the participants, rather than the original topic. Who is right and who is wrong? What's a good idea, what's a practical idea? What's technically accurate, what's pursuable, attainable and enforceable? And - perhaps more than anything - what is to be gained from discussion, and what is to be gained from arguing?

Rather than STOP the thread, I'd instead suggest the all of us (participants and readers alike) take a second and consider their positions, privately, and then ask the (very serious, and quite important) question "But what if ***I'm**** the one who is wrong?" And then go from there. We certainly won't make any meaningful progress without respect. And we can't have respect without being willing to listen to and consider each other's opinions. Even if we disagree with them.

Our legal system is complicated and nuanced; that's one of the reasons it is both daunting AND beautiful IMHO. Neophytes are welcome, but - ultimately - it's not an appropriate playground for idealists. Likewise, zoo considerations have been with humanity since we took on the title Homo Sapiens - from practice to art. There are deep and long standing social and cultural norms surrounding the topic: ones that have guided us to where we are today, and those that will guide us as we move ahead. And while to beg comparison in an attempt to gain some additional understanding - we ought to be careful to not push any comparison too far.

Sex between consenting adult humans is legal (and even that is somewhat debatable, as some acts have significant repercussions). Make as many comparisons as you choose, but ANYTHING that deviates from that baseline is not just going to be challenged, it will be resisted. Determining, fully understanding, and respecting the powers/practices that form the basis for this is the beginning of change.

Thanks, one any all, for continuing respect in this particular thread.

 

[Zoo50]

Sex between consenting adult humans is legal (and even that is somewhat debatable, as some acts have significant repercussions).

As KittyInHeat mentioned, one situation in which "consent" between adult humans is not considered "valid" is when prostitution occurs -- meaning, even if two adult humans consent to have sex (via prostitution methods), it is still illegal in most U.S. states. So "consent", even among adult humans, is still not absolute.

Considering that non-consensual things like animal slaughter and animal castration are legal, it makes no sense that far less harmful things (e.g. sex with animals) are illegal. As I said, people should try to brainstorm ideas which could be used to defend zoo sex in court.

 

[Puhp]

So "consent", even among adult humans, is still not absolute.

Good comment, Zoo50, and I certainly cannot disagree ... though I think it's a subtle-but-important distinction to recognize that it's not the sex itself that's illegal - it's the commercialization of such.

Granted, this isn't what I considered in the "some acts have significant repercussions" comments, but it's related (I was thinking more specifically about adultery/infidelity. As of 2019, adultery is an actual /criminal/ offense in 19 states (though prosecutions are rare) - and, of course, there are other repercussions: from civil lawsuit to dissolution of marriage and the resultant financial implications).

Mostly, I was trying to point at the norm and establish the legal baseline: barring complications, the only acceptable sex is that between consenting adults - and even that is limited in scope.

 

[silkythighs]

As KittyInHeat mentioned, one situation in which "consent" between adult humans is not considered "valid" is when prostitution occurs -- meaning, even if two adult humans consent to have sex (via prostitution methods), it is still illegal in most U.S. states. So "consent", even among adult humans, is still not absolute.

Prostitution isn't "consensual sex" it's a business transaction. Cash in exchange for sex. Also tied to violence, drug addiction and pimps. Pimps who sit back and profit from it all. Two people going out for a few drinks and having sex after, is what is meant by "consensual sex" That's why "prostitution" is illegal in most states, or if legal, highly regulated.

 

[Puhp]

Prostitution isn't "consensual sex" it's a business transaction.

Yeah, and with the stated relationship to violence, drug addiction, sexual slavery, runaways, etc we're WAY beyond the veil - which is exactly the point.

Barring court order, most adults can legally drink.
Barring a skills test and licensure, most adults (again for the most part) can legally drive.
Drink AND drive, there's a REAL legal problem (and you don't even need to be legally intoxicated in some states).

And when one stops to consider the social stigma that has changed the face of drinking and driving? Let's put it this way: The sortline/plot detail of "It's a Wonderful Life" would be different if it was shot today.

*shrug*

The baseline of *legal* acceptability is two adults having consensual sex. And considering the other deviance laws on the books, EVEN THAT isn't guaranteed.

What's it mean? Efforts and desire aside, legalized beast sex across the states is a practical impossibility, in our lifetimes and to the foreseeable future. By all means, if you end up in court - FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT. But know the path down which you choose to head (and the destination).

 

[caikgoch]

Lawrence v. Texas was a case about sodomy. (Homosexual sex)

You are wasting your time. As long as you allow "custom" dictionary definitions like the above into the debate, there can be no sane conclusion. She will also assert that single people do not have the same rights as couples.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Oh, for fuck sake, it has been established in science that decriminalizing prostitution would reduce HIV infection rates, so once again, deontological concepts of morality are a cancer.

 

[Puhp]

Oh, for fuck sake, it has been established in science that decriminalizing prostitution would reduce HIV infection rates, so once again, deontological concepts of morality are a cancer.

Your "shock and outrage" notwithstanding (hey, we're trying for respect here, right?), "established in science" is only the start (Frankly, you'd better bring something more to the table than just "in science" - as there are a ton of social, economic, medical, legal and practical concerns to take into account). At the global level, however, we have actual practical experience with decriminalization of sex work - it's worth a read: Wiki: Decriminalizing Sex Work. Ultimately, not as rosy a picture as you attempt to paint. Futher reading: some opposing thought.

But again, immaterial. The point is that prostitution is mostly illegal on a global level (hey, even despite all those benefits you mention). And - again - that's adults engaging in a consensual sexual arrangement. Once money comes into the picture, things change (like the drinking and driving example).

The laws used to criminalize and punish the practice of bestiality aren't necessarily attempting to legislate morality (really, they are), they are "protecting society." And there isn't a legislative body alive that is will address "our rights to privacy" when the issue is abominable in their eyes which puts society at risk. Witness: the law is cluttered with existing prohibitions of /all sorts/ that won't get erased (bestial practices among them). Who's going to stand up for zoo decriminalization when getting a blowjob is technically illegal?

And herein is the issue: so long as you follow prescribed and established guidelines, you can help birth, nurture, raise, clean, kill, process and eat animals. You simply can't have sex with them (or, for that matter, do any of the aforementioned for the purposes of sexual pleasure or arousal).

I applaud your passion, but - ultimately - I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

I find your defeatism to be both puerile and naive, and I have contempt for it.

We have a duty toward society to try to act with a sense of openness and transparency, over and out, and that is not going to go away. A community that skulks secretively in the shadows is regarded as creepy. A community that attempts to peacefully advocate for itself is almost invariably accepted in the long-run, even if it takes generations for that to come to fruition.

People hate us for very good reasons but not the ones that most people think. The reasons why people hate us comes down to the fact that our behavior has been secretive, and we have made almost no effort at all to establish a sense of mutual trust with society at large. Society punishes those that do not live up to its social responsibilities. This fact is not going to go away.

 

[silkythighs]

You are wasting your time. As long as you allow "custom" dictionary definitions like the above into the debate, there can be no sane conclusion. She will also assert that single people do not have the same rights as couples.

sex with oneself is called, masturbation. Which has nothing to do with the issue of sexual consent. Only sex between consenting adults is accepted in our society.

 

[silkythighs]

Oh, for fuck sake, it has been established in science that decriminalizing prostitution would reduce HIV infection rates, so once again, deontological concepts of morality are a cancer.

Prostitution is called the oldest profession for a reason.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

If you cannot tell the difference between a juvenile human and an adult animal, then I regard that as all the world really needs to know about you.