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

[silkythighs]

Wow you really do live in a fantasy world. If you can't understand the difference between two consenting adults and someone having sex with an animal, that tells me a lot about you.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

If you cannot tell the difference between a juvenile human and an adult animal, then little else needs to be known about you: this is evidence that you are either truly an imbecile or a fraud.

My bullshit detectors are in the red.

 

[Puhp]

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

Well, so much for being respectful.

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.

With all due respect (and it seems less is due by the moment), we ARE that society, and - in reality - it values neither openness nor transparency. A simple review of the law, written and enforced, shows that. Rights are inalienable. Laws are prohibitions and limitations of behavior. You seem to be reaching for rights, not laws.

So - hey - I get it. I understand your analogies. I see your viewpoint. I simply don't agree with it on a fundamental level, thinking it shortsighted (note: coulda said myopic, decided not to) and unrealistic (let alone impractical at a very basic level). Puerile? Naive? Perhaps you should reconsider the choices in your word salad. I'd think my approach was realistic, experiential and measured. I'm happy to wave my vocabulary in your direction, as well as my experience with both the courts and the legislative process. But that doesn't matter, does it... because (again):

... it seems to have become about the participants, rather than the original topic.

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.

I'd point your postulate at pedophilia and go from there. Seriously. Think of it as an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. I know you keep reaching back to anti-gay legislation and the ultimate (potentially begrudging) acceptance of homosexuality* in society at large. This isn't that. (likewise, it's not an acceptance, rather than protection under the law against discrimination, and a decriminalization of such).

Granted, it STILL doesn't apply because animals aren't people, and do not have the same rights. You might consider the same sort of exercise to grant human rights to animals. Because, as a matter of course, it seems as though that's where you're (inadvertently) headed.

People hate us for very good reasons but not the ones that most people think.

"Very good reasons" for which "people hate us?" The reasons why people hate us isn't that our behavior is secretive. It's that it's socially, morally and ethically abominable to society-at-large. We are a subset of this society that thinks differently than the whole. This is akin to saying that they'd "accept us if they just understood us." And to think that you consider my viewpoint to be childishly silly.

Society punishes those that do not live up to its social responsibilities. This fact is not going to go away.

On this, we agree. Unfortunately, we are the ones being punished - the social responsibility, however, is that we are "operating with a lack of transparency" it's that - with our actions and our standpoint - we've broken the social contract.

We won't be accepted (and we certainly won't be celebrated). The very best we can hope for (from a legal standpoint) is to not face active and enforced anti-zoo legislation.

I hope I'm wrong. I will continue to participate in and belong to a sub-segment of society that thinks differently than its containerizing parent. And, if pushed to fight, I'm all in - tooth and nail (er, fang and claw).

I'm in for reasonable conversation, intelligent (even lengthy) discourse, and nuanced argument. It's the only way we learn and move ahead. But, if we're down to name calling and churlishness, I can be done. I just hoped that (and am working toward) this being a place for discussion and agreement.

 

[silkythighs]

If you cannot tell the difference between a juvenile human and an adult animal, then little else needs to be known about you: this is evidence that you are either truly an imbecile or a fraud.

My bullshit detectors are in the red.

LOL do you even know the subject of this thread?? If your going to fight for zoo rights in the courts, you better understand the laws and how our judicial system works. The world according to SigmatoZeta isn't going to be much help to anyone I'm afraid.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Puhp,

I made one post with a central point, not several of them that needed to be responded to separately.

Defeatism is ultimately puerile. I think that that is really a perfectly reasonable thing for me to say.

Building up a better relationship with society takes patience and persistence. It is not really hard. It is like compound interest. You keep putting kind and good words into it, month after month, year after year, and it just keeps building up. The trick to it is to just never stop adding to it, year after year. Patience is the hard part.

People are not really that hard to get along with if you just learn patience.

 

[Puhp]

@SigmatoZeta if you review the transcript, you'll find your posting of "[my] defeatism [is] both puerile and naive, and [you] have contempt for it." is materially different than a simple "defeatism is puerile" and is "a perfectly reasonable thing to say" statement. You have now entered the realm of defending and attempting to disguise thinly veiled name-calling by "changing the record," so we can be done.

I'm happy to discuss and learn, you seem to want to lecture and dig in on your position. And potentially lecture your fellow board members. Not sure that does anyone any good, other than - perhaps - an ego in need of some measure of reassurance? Only you know for sure.

One thing you have proven, and this beyond any shadow of a doubt: that even a lofty education is no guarantee of understanding the absolute and intrinsic value of not only being wrong, but also how to navigate disagreeing with someone, while still having respect for them.

I hope future contributions to this forum are better than the above. We're better with you and could use your strengths, but not necessarily at the cost that you seem to want to extract.

Be well.

 

[Wasbitchpolly]

I’m just waiting for one of these keyboard activists to actuall shut up and put up

 

[silkythighs]

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").

Humans are not apes or just gorillas or chimps with clothes. We do share a common ancestor, but we diverged millions of years ago. BUT regardless, it's irrelevant to the issues being discussed. Besides if you can't see the fundamental differences between an ape and a human. I don't know what else I can add.

 

[silkythighs]

I’m just waiting for one of these keyboard activists to actuall shut up and put up

Exactly! I almost got banned from BF by southflorida for making the same exact statement. They talk and talk about what others should be doing, but do nothing themselves.

 

[caikgoch]

Only sex between consenting adults is accepted in our society.

So in other words, you can have all the sex you want as long as you have a human partner but I am prohibited from masturbating because I don't have a human partner? I can't have sex unless I can find some individual to express legal consent?

 

[Zoo50]

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).

As I said earlier, "consent", when applied to non-human animals, is not the same as consent between humans. (Meaning, "consent" with human words ought to not be a requirement with animals, whether it involves sex or not). There are so many things humans do to animals without their consent (slaughter, spaying/neutering, artificial insemination) that are legal. If these non-consensual things are legal, then it logically follows that sex with animals must be legal also (yet it isn't, because lawmakers are irrational and inconsistent). So interspecies sex, when it involves a human, ought to be considered just as legal as two adult humans having sex.

The idea that humans can only legally have sex with other humans is speciesist.

I like that you say fight (in terms of fighting a case in court) -- the question is, if a zoo lawsuit occurred, would the zoos be successful?

With regard to prostitution (which was discussed earlier in this thread), I agree with @SigmatoZeta -- prostitution should be decriminalized and regulated (which is the way it is done in Nevada).

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.

This is why anti-zoo laws are nonsense. Killing animals (which is basically murder) is far worse (morally) than sex with animals. Sex with animals should be legal, and killing animals (for ANY reason) should be illegal. People should disobey anti-zoo laws as much as they possibly can (by having sex with animals in defiance of these nonsense laws).

When you say "barking up the wrong tree", I think that is a pessimistic view.

I know you keep reaching back to anti-gay legislation and the ultimate (potentially begrudging) acceptance of homosexuality* in society at large. This isn't that. (likewise, it's not an acceptance, rather than protection under the law against discrimination, and a decriminalization of such).

Granted, it STILL doesn't apply because animals aren't people, and do not have the same rights. You might consider the same sort of exercise to grant human rights to animals. Because, as a matter of course, it seems as though that's where you're (inadvertently) headed.

Sex with animals is a right (albeit not one legally recognized at the moment), and sex with animals ought to be decriminalized in the same way gay sex was decriminalized. Also, anti-zoo laws are discriminatory.

Non-human animals do have rights, such as the right to not be murdered in factory farms, and the right to not be castrated -- unfortunately, these rights are not legally recognized right now, but they still exist. Humans and other animal species are morally equal. Morally, non-human animals are "persons".

"Very good reasons" for which "people hate us?" The reasons why people hate us isn't that our behavior is secretive. It's that it's socially, morally and ethically abominable to society-at-large. We are a subset of this society that thinks differently than the whole.

Society is wrong -- interspecies sex (when it involves humans) is not morally wrong (in the same way that a goat who has sex with a dog is not morally wrong). It's just one animal (human) having sex with an animal who happens to belong to a different species (such as a dog). The "requirement" that humans only have sex with other humans is speciesist.

You are correct that society has a negative view of zoo sex -- however, I don't share your pessimism. Zoos ought to try to think of ways to change people's minds (so that non-zoos can become more accepting and tolerant of zoo sex).

Humans are not apes or just gorillas or chimps with clothes. We do share a common ancestor, but we diverged millions of years ago. BUT regardless, it's irrelevant to the issues being discussed. Besides if you can't see the fundamental differences between an ape and a human. I don't know what else I can add.

Stop looking at the differences between humans and non-humans, and start looking at the similarities -- what humans share in common with other species. You have a very speciesist attitude. (You know what speciesism is, right?) Saying that humans are "fundamentally different" than other animals is a very speciesist statement (and it is an incorrect statement as well).

By the way, can anyone think of an argument that they think would be a winning argument (in terms of defending zoo sex in court)?

 

[Wasbitchpolly]

Exactly! I almost got banned from BF by southflorida for making the same exact statement. They talk and talk about what others should be doing, but do nothing themselves.

They’d have empty lives without all the hand wringing and whining

 

[Puhp]

To be honest @Zoo50, the exchange with SigmatoZeta pretty much fatigued me on this topic. I don't have the wherewithal to go through your statement, but it does seem that you're making an effort to have a conversation.

There's much in your post that seems to be baseline zoo-centric statement-making (and how you/we as a subgroup feel) that society as-a-whole (not to mention the specifics of our legal and court systems) doesn't align with. I get how it SHOULD (how we feel it should) be treated from our perspective. However, that's not how society-at large thinks it should be (a position it reinforces through the laws and courts), nor how it actually works.

Further, it's fallacious. Consent and rights - from a legal perspective - is directly applicable to humans. These concepts are partially being expanded to include animals, but it's not directly/specifically about the impact to the animal (as one might think), so much as it is the impact to society. No matter how we care for our animals, thinking - LEGALLY - about how animals and humans are alike doesn't work inside the system we're discussing. It simply does not. To consider otherwise is futile.

You've proven (logically) that the law is not about consent vs non consent. What is it about then?

Consider: As zoos, we find it ridiculous that we can kill and eat an animal, but we can't bring it pleasure and/or have sex with it.

Example: A hunter: they can legally shoot a buck (so long as they follow a proscribed process (license, hunting guidelines etc) as well as self-directed following some ethical guidelines (re: a humane kill), but they can't legally walk over and fellate the buck. They can dismember, cook and eat the buck, as well as display aspects of the buck as trophies on their walls. They can take buck parts, post-death, and do stuff with them. (Note: NONE of this would be okay with a human). Which is more impactful to the animal? To a zoo, this is a non-issue.

Now consider that some anti-zoo laws prescribe the destruction of the involved animal. IF THE BASIS FOR THE LAW IS CONSENT, or WELL BEING OF THE ANIMAL, how can it stand that it's less impactful/harmful to the animal to kill it, than it is to fuck it?

The answer, friend, is that it's not. The law is not designed for the protection of the animal. It's designed for the protection of society, and the most-commonly held values of the majority.

Again, you absolutely must understand (or at least take into account) that the law is not established to be solely for the benefit of the individual. It's for the benefit of the individual within the society. Arguably and demonstratively, it's most for the benefit and continuation of society as a whole (while recognizing that society is made up of individuals). It's how we function WITH each other.

So how can we kill and eat animals, if we also have laws saying we cannot bring harm or cause suffering in animals?

Responsible zoo sex doesn't (or shouldn't) cause harm or suffering, and therefore shouldn't be lumped in with laws that protect animals against harm or suffering. if you are espousing this, then I 100% agree. But specific anti-zoo laws are not about harm or suffering, so much as they are about protecting and defending what society finds acceptable, while - at the same time - codifying what it does not.

Let's turn to a different hot topic: Abortion. Row v Wade provides for privacy between a woman and her doctor (baseline enabling that privacy to include abortion services). This is at a national level. It's also being eroded and attacked where vulnerable. And where Roe is strong, efforts to fight Roe turn to enforcement and regulation. At the State level, it's less material.

I believe firmly in reproductive rights for women, and am strongly pro-choice. Likewise, I personally believe everyone gets the opportunity to decide what is right for them and their health. LIkewise, the benefits of having abortions services kept safe and available to women are clear in many areas. As such, I actually welcome government regulation of such - to provide and protect these rights - and accept/understand the limitations that the law HAS to provide for (eg, when is abortion legal and appropriate, when is the line crossed between a few dividing cells, vs a baby). However, despite how I feel and believe, society at large is moving AWAY from a pro-choice, nationally supported and state available abortion services as a part of female health care.

I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, but this is how our entire country works (and all three branches of our government). It's not perfect, there's a process, it's stilted and antiquated and dodders and tilts along.. but it's what we have. And - unfortunately - the fact that it's not working the way I want it to/the way I think it should work is .... sort of proof that it works.

I hope this is cause for kind and considered discussion. I'd LOVE to have this discussion over beer and in person. However, if it is not, I will take my soapbox and retire. I want discussion, considered argument with room for respectful disagreement, and harmony in our ranks. Mostly, I'd like us to recognize that we have more in common that we do not.. and disrespectful arguing within our ranks is not only rancor-producing, it's counterproductive.

By the way, can anyone think of an argument that they think would be a winning argument (in terms of defending zoo sex in court)?

Depending on the practice, I'd suggest Privacy is the legal way to go here. Though current practices of court, mandatory counseling, incarceration and requiring registration as a sex offender in addition to our socially enforced public humiliation and shame (and dealing with the aftermath) should show that society takes a dim view of these practices. If we'd decriminalize the act, we'd reduce the court's power for the former, though fighting the latter would be a social effort, in alignment with some of what SigmatoZeta was mentioning.

 

[caikgoch]

Further, it's fallacious. Consent and rights - from a legal perspective - is directly applicable to humans.

Absolutely! Now tell me why my right to enjoy my property as I wish without causing pain or suffering is being denied. This is the core of my disagreement with Silky. Why do couples have rights that individuals don't?

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Puhp, I am really just more focused, right now, on local actions. This stuff is a generation out, minimum, from ever being put into action. The zooey community simply lacks the level of organization, right now, to mount a credible challenge.

If you want to make a difference, then thing to do is to start bringing local zoos together. Use Oldenburg's principles for the creation of a "third place":

• Neutral ground Occupants of third places have little to no obligation to be there. They are not tied down to the area financially, politically, legally, or otherwise and are free to come and go as they please.
• Leveler (a leveling place) Third places put no importance on an individual's status in a society. Someone's economic or social status does not matter in a third place, allowing for a sense of commonality among its occupants. There are no prerequisites or requirements that would prevent acceptance or participation in the third place.
• Conversation is the main activity Playful and happy conversation is the main focus of activity in third places, although it is not required to be the only activity. The tone of conversation is usually light-hearted and humorous; wit and good-natured playfulness are highly valued.
• Accessibility and accommodation Third places must be open and readily accessible to those who occupy them. They must also be accommodating, meaning they provide for the wants of their inhabitants, and all occupants feel their needs have been fulfilled.
• The regulars Third places harbor a number of regulars that help give the space its tone, and help set the mood and characteristics of the area. Regulars to third places also attract newcomers, and are there to help someone new to the space feel welcome and accommodated.
• A low profile Third places are characteristically wholesome. The inside of a third place is without extravagance or grandiosity, and has a homely feel. Third places are never snobby or pretentious, and are accepting of all types of individuals, from several different walks of life.
• The mood is playful The tone of conversation in third places is never marked with tension or hostility. Instead, third places have a playful nature, where witty conversation and frivolous banter are not only common, but highly valued.
• A home away from home Occupants of third places will often have the same feelings of warmth, possession, and belonging as they would in their own homes. They feel a piece of themselves is rooted in the space, and gain spiritual regeneration by spending time there.

According to Oldenburg, these elements of a "third place" are important for the growth of any community. It doesn't matter whether it is a church, a bar, or a coffee shop. Without this and other elements to community building, any other proposal is a non-starter.

Our biggest problem, right now, is that our community is shattered. We do not have any worse problems, right now, not even these damn stupid barely enforceable vicious laws. While we can't really fight those laws without rebuilding our community, we should still rebuild our community, whether or not we intend to fight them. Rebuilding our community will give us power. We can argue later over what to do with it.

 

[Zoo50]

Responsible zoo sex doesn't (or shouldn't) cause harm or suffering, and therefore shouldn't be lumped in with laws that protect animals against harm or suffering. if you are espousing this, then I 100% agree. But specific anti-zoo laws are not about harm or suffering, so much as they are about protecting and defending what society finds acceptable, while - at the same time - codifying what it does not.

In my opinion, from the anti-zoo perspective (e.g. that "society" benefits from having anti-zoo laws), I see this as a weak argument. How does "society" benefit from having these anti-zoo laws? If the animal is not harmed, and interspecies sex occurs in an ethical manner, then what harm is being done to society? Note that the argument that "morality" alone (as a justification for anti-zoo laws) is weak, in the same way that laws banning gay sex (sodomy laws) for "morality" reasons is weak.

Basically, the government does not have a right to interfere in people's personal private lives (in the way that anti-zoo laws are doing) -- which is why people ought to disobey these laws. Another way of putting this is that the government does not have a legitimate reason (nor a legitimate interest) in banning sex with animals.

In my opinion, society does not benefit from anti-zoo laws -- they are discriminatory, unjust, and unnecessary (and probably unconstitutional), and they exist to enforce people's bigotry more than anything else. As someone in another thread said, these laws are being made "because people feel like making them", not for any strong argument. (And the "consent" argument that anti-zoos use, as already discussed, is a massively flawed argument).

One reason "the courts" are really the only chance zoos have at getting rid of these laws, is because whenever anti-zoo legislation is voted on in a given U.S. state (or in a given country), zero legislators vote against it.

 

[UR20Z]

Our biggest problem, right now, is that our community is shattered.

That's where you go completely off the rails.

You're operating from the totally false assumption that something that can even be considered a "zoo community" exists, or ever HAS existed, in ANY form.

No such community exists, or ever has, despite 30-odd years of online folk claiming that it does. The only "zoo community" there has ever been has existed nowhere outside the minds of fellows like you, who think that "the zoos need to be saved".

Zoos, collectively, are a disparate group of people who share *EXACTLY ONE* common trait: The interest in, desire for, urge toward, or practice of, having sex with a non-human partner. That's the single, universal truth about zoos when considered in the aggregate. Everything else is up for grabs.

Some of us are democrats. Some republicans. Some libertarians. Some are, or try to be, apolitical. Our "other-side-of-the-pond" folks are some other political persuasion. Some of us are christians, some wiccans, some jews, some islamic. Some follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Some deny the existence of any deity at all, others aren't sure. Some of us refuse to touch anything but tofu and rice. Others prefer a good bloody steak with some taters and peas on the side. Some are rockers, some are jazz fans, others tolerate nothing but Mozart. Some are gay, some straight, some undecided and/or confused. Some like it up the ass, some like going up the ass. Others want nothing but oral, or a handjob. Some like chocolate. Others like sushi. Some are beer drinkers, others prefer whiskey (or whisky, if you like that spelling better) and still others only drink wine, and some don't touch alcohol at all in any form. Some are potheads, some like X, or are meth freaks, others like to "get low" with heroin, and still others think that absolute tee-totaller sobriety is the only way to go through life. Some are software engineers. Others are sanitation engineers. Some are the kind of engineers that drive trains. Some feed animals. Some shovel up shit behind animals. Some slaughter and process animals. Some build houses, others cut down trees.

Do I need to continue? You strike me as being intelligent, despite being misguided, so I'll go with the idea that I don't need to type up an exhaustive list of how many ways we differ from each other. I doubt I could, even if I were interested in trying. Fact is, our differences outnumber our samenesses in more ways than I even want to consider trying to count.

The point is, the only thing that's guaranteed to be true for all of us is that one basic fact: For whatever reason, whether it be genetic, social, a kink, flat-out mental illness, or whatever other reason you might be able to come up with, we're OK with the idea of a human and an animal having sexual relations. And even within that reality, we can't get full agreement - Some think it's bad for a man to put his penis into certain animals, while being perfectly fine with that kind of animal putting his penis into a human man. Others think it's wrong to put a human penis into an animal's anus in most cases, but allow certain exceptions. Others think anything but cuddling is cruelty. And everything in between that you, I, or any dozen Toms, Dicks, or Harrys might be able to dream up. (and probably some that none of us would even consider)

This is not something that creates a "community". It's nothing but one rather specialized trait shared by an otherwise mostly incompatible group of individuals who can only be considered a group at all because they share that one trait.

That's not a community. *AT BEST* it might be considered a sort of "club", one whose membership credentials are the acceptance of human/animal sexual activity.

You can, if you so desire, try to claim there's a community, shattered or otherwise, to rebuild, but the reality is that once you get past the fact that we all (or at least, the majority of us) have no problem with humans and animals having sex, there's nothing there. Joe Dogfucker doesn't agree with Jim Dogsucker on any topic but that of whether sex with an animal is OK. Jim thinks Joe is out of his head for putting his dick in a bitch. Jane Dogsbitch thinks Jim is disgusting because he allows (or more likely, assists) a dog to put his penis into his mouth. Joe thinks Harry Horsefucker is out of his mind for having sex with an animal that can kick him into next week. And on, and on, and on...

MAYBE Jane agrees with Jim that shrimp is good eating. Or maybe she thinks it's barbaric, and Jim is a murderer because he eats those poor innocent little crustaceans.

You get the point? Let me put it another way:

ONE SHARED TRAIT DOES NOT A COMMUNITY MAKE!

No matter how much you me, or anybody else might wish otherwise, that's the base truth, and the reason your efforts are doomed to failure. Add in the fact that "they" - that nebulous group of unnamed "not us" that everyone refers to - hate us. Despise us. Wish us dead and in the hottest depths of hell. Consider us more disgusting than a week old corpse (unless, of course, the corpse is one of those "nasty animal raping perverts", in which case, all's well) laying in the middle of main street, and you hit a double-whammy. "We", the disparate individuals who fall under the umbrella term "zoo" (which term I'm using as shorthand for both "I love my dog so much I have sex with him/her" and "Oh, man, I don't give a fuck about the dog, I just want a warm hole to ram my cock into/stiff dick to ram up my cunny" types) aren't, and many of us dont want to be, part of any "community" you dream up. We want only to be left to ourselves, to live our lives as we see fit, without you, or anyone else trying to "rescue" us from our poor, downtrodden lives. (not that I consider my life either poor or downtrodden, but again, I'm trying to go with the assumption that you're not stupid, just misguided, and can understand the metaphor.) For me, that means interacting with "the world" in general, and zoos more specifically, on MY terms. Something I think is almost certainly true for the vast majority of "us zoos".

We socialize with each other in this nice dark little corner of the internet because this is one of the few methods by which we CAN socialize without being in danger from "they". That doesn't make us a community. Beastforum was never a community. Or MidniteCrow's operation before that. Or Sleepy's Forest. Or Lintilla. Or the old alt.sex.bestiality newsgroup. Or any other gathering place where zoos congregated through the years. At best, it makes us a minority group of people who share the one common trait of being sexually (or in some cases, romantically) interested in animals.

Calling that a "community" makes ALMOST (but not quite) as much sense as calling a kid's toothpick and popsicle-stick construction project a suspension bridge.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

For the last time, this is not really a "dark corner." The Internet is not a private place, Boomer. Stop pretending that it is.

Learn how to use secured direct communications. You would find that you are happier.

Once again, this is not private. This will never be private.

 

[UR20Z]

You'll learn eventually, Milly. I hope the lesson doesn't hurt TOO much.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

This technology does not work the way that you seem to think it does. This is not a "secret place." It never was. It never will be. It is on the first page of search results when someone searches the Internet for "zoophilia." This is a public discussion. What we post here will be here for the entire world to see for years. This is a public place. Stop pretending otherwise.

With everything you say, you are representing us to the entire world.

 

[Puhp]

Absolutely! Now tell me why my right to enjoy my property as I wish without causing pain or suffering is being denied. This is the core of my disagreement with Silky. Why do couples have rights that individuals don't?

Because - for a myriad of reasons ranging from ignorance to fear of social stigma - the majority of people believe that “your enjoyment of your property” is a direct affront to the ethical and moral fabric of this society. They feel it’s an abhorrent “crime against nature“ committed by mentally ill individuals and they actively seek to use the law to make what you (what we) would enjoy to be illegal - and therefore controllable. This is the ugliest truth of all, and one with which we must come to terms:

Zooishness is out-of-fashion (was it ever fashionable?), and Society at large sees us and our practices as abhorrent. Because animals cannot speak as to their preference, society-at-large gets to decide what they would say (regardless of logic).

 

[Puhp]

This thread is disheartening. You guys need to look at something that doesn’t push your buttons so hard. Something Like indecency laws that govern the exposure of female breasts, or something a little more mundane.

Here’s a main takeaway: Your personal feelings are neither impactful nor applicable with regards to the law. As such, most here are attempting political arguments, not legal ones. Politics can drive and guide the law, however, so impassioned diatribes aren’t entirely without merit, but - if it stops there - you lack a foothold to make any meaningful progress.

 

[Puhp]

Boomer.

Milly.

Down to name calling. Awesome.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

This thread is disheartening. You guys need to look at something that doesn’t push your buttons so hard. Something Like indecency laws that govern the exposure of female breasts, or something a little more mundane.

Here’s a main takeaway: Your personal feelings are neither impactful nor applicable with regards to the law. As such, most here are attempting political arguments, not legal ones. Politics can drive and guide the law, however, so impassioned diatribes aren’t entirely without merit, but - if it stops there - you lack a foothold to make any meaningful progress.

A community has to have a high level of political organization and identity as a community for a case to have any chance at all in courts. Without organization, no dice.

That has become the focus of my local efforts, but I am not optimistic that it is going to be an overnight marvel. My husband organized some of the first white parties for fighting AIDS during the 1980's. He has been a uniter of communities for his entire life. Even for him, it's hard. It's not an easy thing. It's a lot of leg work. It's not even my real area of talent, but I will do what I can locally, anyway.

I am actually not as focused, right now, on the OP as I was earlier. The more I have thought about this, the more I have realized that we cannot move forward on any agenda at all without inspiring some level of organization in the zooey community. Anything we ever tried to put into action is a non-starter if we do not have organizational muscle.

One thing that @UR20Z is partly correct about is that, right now, there is no real zooey community, except in the loosest sociological sense of a shared trait. The word "community" is an intentionally ambiguous term in sociology. It actually can refer to a segment of a population that is linked by one common trait. However, it can also be argued, in sociology, that there is no real community if there is no real culture of interaction or sense of mutual identity among that community, in which members of that community regard their interests as being linked. That is not going to occur without some of us exerting efforts to build community.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Down to name calling. Awesome.

I am sorry. If I feel tempted to react again like that, I will just use the ignore feature. Not because I don't want to hear from him. He brings with him useful information about the history of the community. I just don't want others to be distracted by our personal disagreement.

@UR20Z you basically said "There is no zooey community." You are incorrect. There is interaction going on among zoos, and it is getting increasingly organized. In fact, I think that the collapse of Beast Forum removed one of our most serious roadblocks. Fausty is right, that Beast Forum was a dumpster-fire. You would be correct that Beast Forum was not really a community. I really regard it as being partly to blame for shattering our community. It was barbarism.

However, I think that one of the current challenges, of the zooey community, is that too many of them still are dependent upon Twitter, where disinformation and bullshit spreads like wildfire. I am an ardent proponent of us using secure direct messaging clients that allow group chats. Communities that are built on those tend to be much stronger and more united. They allow for more organized behavior.

 

[caikgoch]

A community has to have a high level of political organization and identity as a community for a case to have any chance at all in courts. Without organization, no dice.

That's not true. All it takes to have success in court is one individual with a case, one lawyer to push that case, and enough money to pay for it.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

That's not true. All it takes to have success in court is one individual with a case, one lawyer to push that case, and enough money to pay for it.

Okay, I will give you the fact that it only takes one case, but to weather extensive and repeated appeals in a protracted court fight, we would have to develop a fairly sophisticated legal fighting machine. This does take actual organization. Lambda Legal is a very well-funded gay rights organization that specifically battles for LGBT equality. That organization would not ever exist without the presence of a well organized LGBT community. That took decades to build up. Lambda Legal did not emerge into existence until a solid generation after the Mattachine Society was formed, and it took a long time for the Mattachine Society itself to get organized enough to do anything substantial. It is extremely hard to get people, especially people that are de jure downtrodden and driven underground, to organize to get anything done.

 

[Puhp]

That's not true. All it takes to have success in court is one individual with a case, one lawyer to push that case, and enough money to pay for it.

This is absolutely, unfathomably, and completely untrue - and shows a basic misunderstanding about how the law works technically, practically and philosophically. Precedent for this kind of crime, with this kind of victim, will never, EVER go our way, let alone be adopted across the states. AT BEST, you might be able to make a case for privacy at a national level, but it will be rejected and declined to be heard. This is social pressure in action, and is how our system is supposed to work. Take a gander at Warren v. Virginia (and, in particular, how it rejects Lawrence v. Texas).

Precedent exists, just not the way we want.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

This is absolutely, unfathomably, and completely untrue - and shows a basic misunderstanding about how the law works technically, practically and philosophically. Precedent for this kind of crime, with this kind of victim, will never, EVER go our way, let alone be adopted across the states. AT BEST, you might be able to make a case for privacy at a national level, but it will be rejected and declined to be heard. This is social pressure in action, and is how our system is supposed to work. Take a gander at Warren v. Virginia (and, in particular, how it rejects Lawrence v. Texas).

Precedent exists, just not the way we want.

And that just backs up my view that we would need a highly organized legal fighting machine to really stand a chance. That takes time to build, and it's not easy, especially if you are part of a community that is as badly driven underground as the zooey community.

 

[knotinterested]

A true problem is that winning a case or two doesn't change a law. Until there is a repeal or rewrite of laws that separate zoo activities from animal abuse then people just having fun with their animal partners will remain at risk.

Unfortunately to change or rewrite a law requires petitions and dedicated individuals that are willing to see it through. It also requires politicians that have enough brass to bring it up and push to have it passed. With the things are in our society that would be about as popular as lighting a cigarette while pumping gas into your car.