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

Stories of successful advocacy

SigmaTheZeta

Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Does anybody know of any stories where someone successfully appealed to the government to overturn anti-bestiality laws and actually expand or at least preserve our freedoms? This could include successes at the local level, such as establishing good relations with law enforcement officials or members of a city council.

I know that German zoosexuals were partly successful at defeating the German law that would have criminalized private intimacy with their animals. Thanks to a speedy court ruling, they effectively made it basically impossible to enforce against normal zoosexuals a la "I fell in love with my Alaskan malamute." If I recall correctly, they have a large public advocacy movement there, and they have made some amount of progress at the local level. I'm not sure about the details.

This isn't about "being heartening." That is not a problem for me, in particular. It is more a matter of identifying what actually works. If someone managed to get it done right, then I'd love to know what they did.
 
I keep waiting for someone, or some organization, to challenge the anti-zoo laws in the United States (in ANY state with such laws), and as far as I know, there have been no successful U.S. challenges. One organization that ought to be fighting them is the ACLU, but they've shown no signs that zoo is even on their radar, let alone advocating for its decriminalization.

In recent years, it has been pretty much 100% bad news, with place after place banning sex with animals. Big organizations like HSUS are on a crusade to ban it in every U.S. state. There have been only two times I can think of where the laws were challenged in the U.S. -- in Florida in the early 2010s, a man (who was arrested for having sex with a horse) challenged Florida's anti-zoo law in a local court, but it didn't go anywhere (no appeal) because he had no money to pay for court fees. In South Dakota, a man was arrested for having sex with a cow, and his lawyer argued that the South Dakota anti-zoo is unconstitutional -- I don't know what the outcome of that case was.

In other countries, I'm not sure if there have been any successful challenges. Whereas lots of organizations help fight for gay rights in the courts, it seems no one is willing to help zoos.

The news about sex with animals always contains lots of the following: arrests, and new anti-zoo laws. There's never (as far as I know) reports about legal challenges to these laws.
 
Last edited:
...
I know that German zoosexuals were partly successful ...

... Thanks to a speedy court ruling, they effectively made it basically impossible to enforce against normal zoosexuals ....

... they have a large public advocacy movement ...

I still disagree with the first quoted sentence.

E.g. it wasn't a court ruling, but the first complaint brought to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (highest court in Germany) was turned down with a short comment. So that complaint wasn't even admitted to court. The comment has some weasle-word sentences so that the court is neither "allowing" sex with animals, nor can get into any trouble for suppressing someone. The sole people who saw this as a "win" are Zetaverein. - Which is the 'large advocacy' movement and contains literally dozens (like 2x12 or so) people. Their one hinge to be able to see this as a win is the "ohne Zwang" thing.

As nobody else interpreted it this way, you just know that all the basic run-of-the-mill courts will immediately fall to the (very normie) interpretation that you did provide food, didn't you? Oh, so that's coercion and that's a form of zwang. Or you trained the animal for sex, surely. - Which is a point specifically mentioned in the law. It is irresponsible to have some people rely on this hack lawyer interpretation of this comment to the dismissal of a complaint at court and expect your local court to follow that. In the legal area, you can find volumes of comments on everything, and usually these answer your simple yes/no question with {yes, no, maybe, sometimes, 1, 14, Canada, and a short bread but only if soaked with tea}.
But of course, if you are affected you could then lawyer your way up to this highest court and expect that this court would follow it's own comment and overturn the lower court rulings. This will only take 3 to 5 years and a quarter of a million Euros. No problem.
Besides that you surely wouldn't become a public figure and the Streisand-effect's first known outlier.
 
Last edited:
Were in a primordial stage of zoo legal defense, you wont find much. I'm interested in japan and chile's zoo cases in court, thats what i want to know but my japanese is zero and chile doesn't have much online.
 
As long as they make it legal to let me put my dick in bitches I don't care how it's done. I couldn't really care less if sex with male animals is illegal or if it's illegal for women, just let me fuck bitches without being arrested and I'll be perfectly content. If more men would push for pro zoo rhetoric I figure we could get it changed. Being honest I'd take a guess most of the politicians have fucked their female animals at some point with how their home lives with their wives are destroyed and chaotic. If we can let the queers have freedom to literally ass fuck eachother in parades there's no Damn reason to keep men loving their girls be illegal.
 
It would be interesting to see the patterns from previous overton window shifts and how those lessons could be applied or avoided in a zoo context.
 
Were in a primordial stage of zoo legal defense, you wont find much. I'm interested in japan and chile's zoo cases in court, thats what i want to know but my japanese is zero and chile doesn't have much online.

Right now, especially in the United States, some kind of zoo legal defense organization is desperately needed, but no one is willing to do it because every zoo is hiding (in the closet). The new laws make it even harder for zoos to come out. It will take help from non-zoos to push a pro-zoo movement.

The issue right now is that state after state (in the United States) is criminalizing sex with animals, and every state legislature votes unanimously in favor of criminalizing it. One politician even said "it should be obvious [to ban sex with animals]". This needs to stop, and the anti-zoo laws need to be challenged in court for being unconstitutional. But like I said, no one is doing it because everyone is hiding.
 
At one level, we need people who are economically independent to argue the case. Where they don't need to be ostracized because they have nothing to lose because they are indeed "economically independent" I"ll confess I'm almost there
 
At one level, we need people who are economically independent to argue the case. Where they don't need to be ostracized because they have nothing to lose because they are indeed "economically independent" I"ll confess I'm almost there

Zoos need to start somewhere to fight the new anti-zoo laws in the U.S., and it would be good if non-zoos helped out.
 
Consider for a moment that I am not trying to be an asshole, but that I am interested in facts, which are items of knowledge that can be derived from real world observations and subsequently help one to predict and / or influence the future. If not a broad future cone, then at least to turn one's own life for the better.

This thread was now online for one week, and must have been seen by thousands of people from around the world. - The barrier for posting is really low, as you only have to push a few keys and then ENTER.

Not a single entry was made regarding a case of successful advocacy. What should we derive from this in regard of ideas presented in other threads like 'turn local political leaders to our side' or 'write a blog' or 'win over youtube influencers' ?

Again - I am not here for the fun of raining on someone's parade. I just like to go back and check again, and crossreference, and derive conclusions from that instead of just forgetting things / results which don't fit my current mindset. It's hard to do - I have been smashed into the wall by reality, too, and still didn't want to believe it was happening once or twice during my lifetime. But the second paragraph of this post here is a fact.
 
@pferdefreund,

My aims are actually ultra-realistic, when you get right down to it. Right now, my FIVE YEAR PLAN is to get some local zoophiles to start meeting regularly for a dinner or meeting of some kind. I have a realistic idea of how hard even that is to pull off. My husband runs a local meet-up, and the organizational talent it takes for getting a group of people together that will meet regularly is actually a major talent and dedication barrier. If we can just get that going within the next five years, that will be a major milestone.

My secondary aim is to attract ambitious young zoophiles to move to the area, and I mean ones that are here mostly for the jobs so that they can afford the animals they desire, not just for that but also because they are ambitious and want to amount to something. We have enough zoophiles that engage in the behavior of fondling the neighbor's dog or hopping over fences to cop a feel on someone else's stallion. Pfft. Instead of that, I want to attract ambitious young zoophiles that want to be a part of a strong mentoring culture that can someday be the socially esteemed public face of the next generation's zoophile community. I don't want any fucking losers. I want winners, and if they're not winners yet, I want them to believe they can become winners.

In the next generation, I want the zoophiles in my area to be some seriously fancy fucks because WE DESERVE TO HAVE THAT KIND OF IMAGE AND THAT KIND OF SELF-IMAGE, AND YOU SHOULD WANT TO STRANGLE ANYONE THAT SAYS WE DON'T!!!
 
I keep waiting for someone, or some organization, to challenge the anti-zoo laws in the United States (in ANY state with such laws), and as far as I know, there have been no successful U.S. challenges. One organization that ought to be fighting them is the ACLU, but they've shown no signs that zoo is even on their radar, let alone advocating for its decriminalization.

In recent years, it has been pretty much 100% bad news, with place after place banning sex with animals. Big organizations like HSUS are on a crusade to ban it in every U.S. state. There have been only two times I can think of where the laws were challenged in the U.S. -- in Florida in the early 2010s, a man (who was arrested for having sex with a horse) challenged Florida's anti-zoo law in a local court, but it didn't go anywhere (no appeal) because he had no money to pay for court fees. In South Dakota, a man was arrested for having sex with a cow, and his lawyer argued that the South Dakota anti-zoo is unconstitutional -- I don't know what the outcome of that case was.

In other countries, I'm not sure if there have been any successful challenges. Whereas lots of organizations help fight for gay rights in the courts, it seems no one is willing to help zoos.

The news about sex with animals always contains lots of the following: arrests, and new anti-zoo laws. There's never (as far as I know) reports about legal challenges to these laws.
The South Dakota guy failed. He was booked for four years.
I think may be he should've tried another defense. May be claiming that he should only be charged if the animal was hurt. But vets will clearly say anything even if its not true.
I do remember (not so well) one article that mentioned a vet checked a female dog for injuries during an arrest of someone. I believe there was no damage reported. But I could be wrong, and the vet claimed there was severe damage to help get more views in the media.


I don't believe there hasn't been any successful stories relating to zoophilia. If there somehow has been, it was hidden really well.. I think we should find away to change the law to be if any type of injury occurred, then it should be illegal. But would then have to be proved that it was intentional. Surely, no one would like that and would just want it gone. But if it were to be different to protect the good zoos who take care of their animals, and to punish the bad ones.
I feel like this would've been good for another thread. But that's my 2 cents.
 
The South Dakota guy failed. He was booked for four years.
I think may be he should've tried another defense. May be claiming that he should only be charged if the animal was hurt. But vets will clearly say anything even if its not true.
I do remember (not so well) one article that mentioned a vet checked a female dog for injuries during an arrest of someone. I believe there was no damage reported. But I could be wrong, and the vet claimed there was severe damage to help get more views in the media.

Why do zoos always fail? I remember a phrase from another zoo website -- the person said "zoos always lose". And that seems to be the case -- judges and people with power are just too biased, bigoted, and anti-zoo. It seems that, before a zoo has even walked into a court room, they're perceived as guilty / convicted.
 
Why do zoos always fail? I remember a phrase from another zoo website -- the person said "zoos always lose". And that seems to be the case -- judges and people with power are just too biased, bigoted, and anti-zoo. It seems that, before a zoo has even walked into a court room, they're perceived as guilty / convicted.
@Zoo50, that is why I think that getting coordinated locally is so very important.

If any of us wanted to try that, though, then we would have to start now in order to really benefit from it in an entire generation. It can take literally a generation to build up a strong enough local community that you could manage something like raising money to get someone a team of attorneys on someone's side after some obsessed anti-zoophile cop busted him without a warrant while he was tied with his Rottweiler.

Cases that are genuinely like that only come along every once in a blue moon, but when they do, there needs to be someone there to bring in money for a legal counsel and then maybe pursue an appeal, which can be expensive.

On organizing locally, I also think that it's a big deal to get people coming out locally. It's cowardice that got us into the mess that we are currently in, and we can no longer afford letting ourselves be intimidated by the sort of cucks that got us into our present situation.

And we need to start getting young zoos to come out BEFORE they have gotten invested in an animal. Nothing paralyzes a person like the potential loss of their spouse, and not being out to anybody in their lives at all just leaves them utterly isolated from anyone that is not also a zoophile. To those that are in this situation and are therefore afraid to come out, I would challenge them to just recognize how badly they shit the bed by even getting an animal while still closeted.

If your family already know, your friends already know, and your community already know, then you would have time to get at least some of them convinced that you actually genuinely love your animal, and you'd have family, friends, and maybe even your religious congregation ready to help support you if you ever did get into trouble, which if you truly had that much support you probably wouldn't. You would have people prepared to come claim prior ownership of your animal to circumvent compulsory sterilization, spring for your bail, and fund your legal defense and if need be appeal because that's what family and friends do.

And those that are not willing to come out should probably just not get an animal at all. I would put it to them this way: if you truly don't believe that your community and those nearest and dearest to you would not try to protect you or your animal, knowing that you are a zoophile, then should you really try owning an animal at all? Think ahead. Think about whether or not you are in a community where you and your animal would be safe before you get your animal.

And if you are not safe where you are, words of advice from someone that escaped a homophobic hellhole: move the fucking hell out, and start over somewhere that you can find people that are at least rational. Stop clinging to your attachment to toxic people.

I say that those that are currently non-owners, if anything, ought to take the lead in coming out. We should consider it our personal duty to find out whether or not we can trust our family and community, and if we do not, then we need to consider our options, which for some of us might include finding a job in some other city and starting over.

Guarantee that you and your animal will have a system of social support before getting one. Come out first, find out who if anyone you can trust, and only then move forward if there is indeed anyone you can trust. If you do not absolutely trust your family and your friends with your freedom and your animal's life, then either move, or just don't get one.

We need to move away from the pathetic cuck philosophy of "close the blinds and hide," which I argue is why we are in this mess to begin with, and move instead toward "Find out if you can trust the people around you with your animal's life before you even start."

I can boil it down to a simple slogan: "Be out, or don't get one!"
 
Last edited:
I vaguely remember a woman in the UK managing to minimise the offence using ignorance as a defence. Surprisingly it was allowed but didn't stop a guilty verdict.
 
I vaguely remember a woman in the UK managing to minimise the offence using ignorance as a defence. Surprisingly it was allowed but didn't stop a guilty verdict.

That's more one of those to pin on the "men receive harsher sentences in general" board - Ignorance is by definition no valid defence strategy in court.
I do recall the woman btw, that was fairly recently and she did have some videos online, claimed in court she had no idea it was illegal, and was found guilty nevertheless.
 
As for the veterinarians: I do love those guys/girls, when I need them for shots and filing the teeth etc.
But even if they are stupid enough to stick their neck out in the sense that they would report "no findings" in terms of "organical harm" (what weird wording I need here) on the animal; They'd be slaugthered figuratively by people who are convinced a priori that the animal must have been harmed. The vet then obviously didn't look for something well enough, is incompetent, or 'gasp' could be one of them and tries to cover for that guy. So even if they want to play nice, they'd be stupid to do it.
If there is really nothing "organically" (weird) found to take pictures of, then it will be claimed that the animal "behaves weird".

I remember two things that actually happened in the course of making zoo illegal in Germany (ZTHorse disagrees). One of the major talking points the antis pushed was that the animals affected don't urinate any longer. - As if, but they just kept pushing that point and people just accepted it. That talking point was published over and over, because at the handover point from anti to journalist, the info is just taken at face value unquestioningly.
They even managed to sensationalize how someone was interested whether his dog which had to be handed back to him had been castrated at the shelter. For normal people that's ok to check you property, but you know he's a zoo, its a scandal to check his balls.

Same here, and a sign of simple moral prejudices and nothing else being the basis: If a "normal" dog sniffs someone's crotch he's waved away. If it is known this is a zoos dog the exact same will be seen as proof that the dog was "trained" for sex.
 
Regarding this thread's main subject:

I really cannot think of any times a new anti-zoo law has been repealed or abolished. As far as I know, all of the anti-zoo laws made in the past 20 years (in places like Denmark, Germany, Norway, Texas, Florida, Washington state, etc.) still exist. There are so many anti-zoo laws now, and yet none of them have been abolished.

These laws are morally wrong and should be abolished, but no one is doing anything to fight them.
 
I'm a non-owner, but coming out is still not an option... I would not enjoy being a target.
 
I'm a non-owner, but coming out is still not an option... I would not enjoy being a target.
I am actually talking right now about a micro-cellular structure for the future community, which would hedge against that. I think it is a good idea because if you actually did connect with maybe four other people IRL, then that would be all that you got, just those people, which would make it less likely that some crusader or some Quisling would eventually find you and make your life difficult. It is an anti-epidemic measure. I think it has promise.

I don't fault your impulse to protect yourself, but that's precisely WHY I think that smaller, more close-knit groups are better, because they would provide some community and interaction for people like you without you being as much at risk as you would in a more hectic, more high-density sort of community. At the very least, you could envinson the possibility of knowing maybe three other zoos in your area, and you would have a fairly high level of confidence that, if they wanted to have a potluck, it would just be a potluck.

The more crowded atmosphere of Beast Forum obviously did not work.
 
Yeah, I don't know about that... I just don't want to make my life any more difficult for no good reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I don't know about that...
Trust me. It would have the anti-zoos so obsessive over playing whack-a-mole that they would not even notice you and some friends basically minding your own business, who have not even mentioned your shared zooness to each other in 25 years. They would be so busy jumping at shadows and trying to ban everything from children's cartoons to peanut butter, it wouldn't even occur to them to check a few neighbors that haven't done anything significant in the past generation besides a karaoke contest that was a flop and only attracted five people, where someone had a stage-fright induced asthma attack and needed attention from an EMS because he forgot to bring his inhaler.

It doesn't sound like something that modest is doing anything for the rest of the community, but that is the idea. More people doing less, by focusing on a relatively limited and more modest and more realistic set of goals, really amounts to more getting done. All of it builds a foundation that matures over the course of a couple of generations, and once it gets started, not much can stop it.

The kinds of people that genuinely believe that they can only ever be happy while living under an authoritarian moral police state are afraid of many-headed monsters precisely because a many-headed monster is the only thing that can really beat them.

The true name of that many-headed monster is Revolution.
 
Last edited:
Because the only accepted and recognized sex by society is that between consenting adults.
There is a world of difference between a juvenile human and an adult animal, and I think that several decades of advocacy will eventually drive home that point.

Whether you like it or not, that advocacy movement has already begun, and more zoos are going public to start trying to address this.
 
There is a world of difference between a juvenile human and an adult animal

But again this is irrelevant. For instance, you and I know that a male dog will willing hump me. But that's not a defense I can use when in front it a judge. Consensual sex only deals with human on human relationships.
 
But again this is irrelevant. For instance, you and I know that a male dog will willing hump me. But that's not a defense I can use when in front it a judge. Consensual sex only deals with human on human relationships.
Prior to Lawrence v. Texas, it only dealt with missionary sex between a married adult man and woman. In fact, there were still laws against shacking up, in some states, when I was growing up, and political leaders actually routinely got their lives ruined based on those anti-cohabitation laws.

The world has changed more than I think you really understand since the late 20th Century.
 
Prior to Lawrence v. Texas, it only dealt with missionary sex between a married adult man and woman. In fact, there were still laws against shacking up, in some states, when I was growing up, and political leaders actually routinely got their lives ruined based on those anti-cohabitation laws.

The world has changed more than I think you really understand since the late 20th Century.

That supreme court case was ONLY concerned with the issue of whether two consenting adults had the right to sexual privacy. Sure laws against adultery, oral sex and sex toys were, and still are on the books in some places. But nobody was being openly prosecuted for that. Unlike gays, who were being prosecuted for the very act of having homosexual sex.
 
That supreme court case was ONLY concerned with the issue of whether two consenting adults had the right to sexual privacy. Sure laws against adultery, oral sex and sex toys were, and still are on the books in some places. But nobody was being openly prosecuted for that. Unlike gays, who were being prosecuted for the very act of having homosexual sex.
Straight people actually lost their careers over cohabitating with their romantic partners. It was called "shacking up." It was viewed as the ultimate act of heterosexual sleaziness, and people that did so were stereotyped as trashy, low-class, despicable people. This was going on in my state right up until 2006:


I recall, when I was growing up, that a sheriff was once forced into resigning from his job because he had shacked up with his wife for a while, and the media had a field day with it. It got portrayed as a case of truly sinister corruption.

My sister has actually been persecuted worse for shacking up with her boyfriend than I have over being gay because the Southern Baptists in this state really are more hostile toward that than they are toward gay people. They are actually pretty savage over that, and they don't apologize over it. My sister finally got fed up with my grandmother over her ongoing bullying.

Change is inevitable. You cannot avoid social change. What you have control over is how you navigate social change.
 
Because the only accepted and recognized sex by society is that between consenting adults.

When it comes to animals, the "consent" argument makes no sense. Non-human animals are routinely slaughtered, artificially inseminated, spayed/neutered, and confined to homes without their consent, yet all of those things are legal.

This means that anti-zoo laws (which are based on an alleged lack of "consent") are irrational and inconsistent (when compared to all of the other things humans do to animals without their "consent"). If "lack of consent" is the reason for banning sex with animals, then other things that lack consent (such as slaughter) should be banned as well.

Also, even between adult humans, the "consent" argument isn't completely consistent. For example, prostitution is still illegal in most U.S. states, even if it involves consent.
 
Back
Top