Hawaii is making sex with animals a felony; bills in other states as well

I've said to people that I have friends online whose sexual preferences are downright illegal. This is in conversations about the idea that the government has no business interfering with what we do in private, but what we do in public definitely is a different story. Like, I don't care who people screw in private but I do NOT want to see that stuff in public. A friend of mine is trans and I was actually trying to explain to him (I say him because he's biologically male) why I don't believe the public should be forced to legitimize trans. And that is because I am a strong believer in the preservation of the public square and not exposing children to aberrant sexual preferences. So this friend of mine (who is trans) was not understanding my position. I then explained that I have other friends whose sexual preferences are entirely illegal (the zoos). And how I still believe that there should be no "zoo pride" or any shift in society where zoophilia is accepted by the general public. Making it legal and openly accepted will introduce a huge list of consequences such as animal brothels and legitimate abuse which would be a nightmare to try and contain.

But honestly, the consequences of zoo sex are far too severe. A felony? Come on. Zoo should be one of those things where it is technically illegal but selectively enforced. As in, they only come after you if there is evidence you are also abusing your animal. And as long as you keep to yourself and don't drag it into the public square, the law won't come looking for trouble on your property. That is how it should be, in my view.
 
preaching to the choir, OP.

I wish any notable international support would have come when the wave of anti-zoo bills started in Europe, and specifically Germany.
We asked for it back then, and particularly noted the domino-effect this would have.
Nobody helped. Now later when it hits at home, I can read all the arguments we had back then how it is unjust and a twisting language etc pp over and over for every state and every country of the particular domino of today.

now it is too late, as now a single "we don't want to be the last country/state to ban it!" is so obviously right to people and smahes all your arguments.
I wouldn't waste any effort on trying to fight this. Perhaps send a copy of the "RED" short movie to legislators, otherwise invest your time to design a hidden life for yourself.
 
Ebonstar said:
The problem I have is when people actively seek out zoos for prosecution. People who will go out of their way to find the real identity of a member of an online community such as this. Those people are scum.
Click to expand...

Aren't they just helping justice in the legal sense? Hard to argue against the enforcement of laws and make sense unless you are also arguing against the laws itself.

Ebonstar said:
I mean, I can put up a pretty mean defense for zoophilia but absolutely nobody in my real life social circle even suspects zoo relation. It's almost impossible to advocate for zoos without you yourself becoming suspect as being a zoo.
Click to expand...

You are a zoo, aren't you? So they would actually be right to suspect that your are a zoo. If that's a problem for you, because you've always wanted and still want to keep it all private, you really can't do much else than hide, I suppose. I wouldn't expect from any individual to be open about it. But I think that those who are telling others not to be open are an annoying bunch of noxious chickens.

Ebonstar said:
I then explained that I have other friends whose sexual preferences are entirely illegal (the zoos). And how I still believe that there should be no "zoo pride" or any shift in society where zoophilia is accepted by the general public. Making it legal and openly accepted will introduce a huge list of consequences such as animal brothels and legitimate abuse which would be a nightmare to try and contain.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. Abuse can be prohibited without prohibiting non-abusive sex, which is exactly how sex between adult humans is handled. And as far as I know there is only one state in the US where brothels for adult humans are legal, although there are fifty states where sex between adult humans is legal. The legality of sex apparently does not imply a legality of brothels in the US.
 
pferdefreund said:
I wish any notable international support would have come when the wave of anti-zoo bills started in Europe, and specifically Germany.
We asked for it back then, and particularly noted the domino-effect this would have.
Nobody helped. Now later when it hits at home, I can read all the arguments we had back then how it is unjust and a twisting language etc pp over and over for every state and every country of the particular domino of today.
Click to expand...

I remember a Dane who asked the international zoo community for help in the interest of both animals and zoophiles internationally, and not just randomly asking for help, but with a thoughtful project. I remember how frustrated he was with how little the response was back then and how it failed. It was painful. The Danish actually achieved a lot themselves but in the end a ban was passed anyway.

German zoos achieved a lot themselves. Here, consensual sex with animals is still legal today.

International support might be somewhat helpful, I guess, but in the end people will always have to do most of the work at home. They know their country, their legal system, their media, they are the ones who their country worries about, they are the ones who speak the language, they are the ones who are part of the society with friends, family, co-workers. Too strong international support with low national activity could actually be detrimental, I think, because then anti-zoos could make it look like an adverse foreign influence to weaken the country. That's a card played against gays in Eastern Europe.
 
Tailo said:
Aren't they just helping justice in the legal sense? Hard to argue against the enforcement of laws and make sense unless you are also arguing against the laws itself.
Click to expand...
No, they are not helping justice at all. They are the moral busybodies which C.S. Lewis warned us about.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Tailo said:
You are a zoo, aren't you? So they would actually be right to suspect that your are a zoo.
Click to expand...
Well now, that is irrelevant, which is my whole point. Zoo or not, I have enough facts and logic to make a very solid case against any law prohibiting zoophilia activities. Personally, I'm what you might call a "ZGTOW which is essentially MGTOW who hasn't given up on sex but isn't willing to risk getting tangled up with another woman. I've loved being around horses for a long time and I find them therapeutic to help with personal psychological trauma. I have grown to be quite open for, even longing for sexual contact with a mare. Though I have a dog instead since I live in a suburb and can't have a horse. I'm open to sexual intimacy with a dog, though it needs to be a dog I find attractive. I am not particularly aroused by dog pussy, due to its shape and size, but horse pussy I find pushes the right buttons. And importantly, I am not against human sexual intimacy... I'd prefer that if I had the option. But I am against placing myself in a vulnerable position once more where a woman has the power to destroy my life. No thanks.

Tailo said:
The legality of sex apparently does not imply a legality of brothels in the US.
Click to expand...
Human whores are a lot more capable of reporting abuses than animals would be. Simply removing the laws prohibiting zoosex is not enough. Doing such a thing WOULD absolutely open up a market for their sexual exploitation because there truly are clients who would take advantage of this opportunity. There are a lot of sickos out there in the world, never forget this. People who would take the opportunity to act out sadistic sexual practices on animals if they can get away with it. You must think of the big picture here. To remove existing anti-zoo laws means that brand new regulations would need to be created to determine just what scenarios of zoo-related sex are still prohibited. And this is not an area of legislation which lawmakers are very excited about coming up with, I can guarantee you that.

No, a better solution would be for the laws to be seriously slackened. If I were to tackle the task, I would say that it be illegal to prostitute animals for money. Keep the social stigma so that actual abuse is minimized. But STOP any and all pursuit into simple everyday zoos who are just having sexual relations with animals in a non-abusive manner. And if the authorities find a zoo and suspect abuse, then fine, investigate to the point where no actual abuse is found and then let the zoo carry on without further harassment.
 
I agree with the quote from C.S. Lewis. I think you missed my point—actually all of the points I made— @Ebonstar. ? At least that means that we agree in some respects although you may not be aware of it.
 
Tailo said:
I agree with the quote from C.S. Lewis. I think you missed my point—actually all of the points I made— @Ebonstar. ? At least that means that we agree in some respects although you may not be aware of it.
Click to expand...
To expand on the "you are zoo though, so they would be right" argument, I am confident that if I was not zoo-inclined at all, I would still argue in favor of zoophilia from a moral perspective. I have a firm understanding of the legal distinctions which are being made, namely that the sexual gratification of the human is precisely what makes the activity illegal. I find this a horrific inconsistency in law, as you cannot build a legislation purely on whether or not sexual pleasure was experienced.

And yet, if you remove the sexual pleasure aspect of the law, there is no justifiable reason why the activity is illegal WHEN you look at all the other activities which are entirely legal. Artificial insemination, all by itself, proves this point. If that practice is legal, then it is impossible to be consistent in law and also prohibit bestiality in all forms.
 
Ebonstar said:
To expand on the "you are zoo though, so they would be right" argument, I am confident that if I was not zoo-inclined at all, I would still argue in favor of zoophilia from a moral perspective. I have a firm understanding of the legal distinctions which are being made, namely that the sexual gratification of the human is precisely what makes the activity illegal. I find this a horrific inconsistency in law, as you cannot build a legislation purely on whether or not sexual pleasure was experienced.

And yet, if you remove the sexual pleasure aspect of the law, there is no justifiable reason why the activity is illegal WHEN you look at all the other activities which are entirely legal. Artificial insemination, all by itself, proves this point. If that practice is legal, then it is impossible to be consistent in law and also prohibit bestiality in all forms.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree fully. :)
 
Ebonstar said:
LOL! I like this.

Yes, officer, I was just doing some artificial insemination using my... um... tool here, see this is my breeding tool. Yeah.
Click to expand...

I once discussed with an anti on reddit, and - in desperation - she used the argument that sex with animals causes penile cancer. A (back then) new study had suggested this. The explanation in the study was that "the fluids" in there "maybe" are not good for you.

My answer was: "So wear a condom."

Reaction: "oh."

Malicious compliance :D
 
Aphroditedreams said:
You can be for something and not have actually participated in the act itself!
Click to expand...
You're apparently forgetting about a *REALLY REALLY REALLY* popular (despite being a load of horseshit) concept called "guilt by association" that the "normal" herd subscribes to.

When it comes to zoo/beasty stuff, in the eyes of Joe and Jane Public, either you're flat-out, no-questions asked, no defense is acceptable, or even possible under any circumstances against it, or you're one of those animal raping sickos. If you don't shit on the idea at every possible opportunity, you're obviously one of those perverts - After all, nobody who isn't one of them would, even COULD, do so much as THINK about doing so much as giving those disgusting freaks the time of day, never mind the benefit of the doubt.
 
Thunder101 said:
I've done that a few too many times and have always regretted it. No matter how much logic and evidence you present they will always stick their fingers in their ears and call you names.
Click to expand...
"Never argue with a fool. They drag you down to their level and then beat you on experience."

What you see here is typical law making of the US. First of all, they use the bible for these kind of things. Since it is a deeply religious country, they have no problem in converting bible text into laws. Then they face another problem. I guess nobody really cares about sex with an animal. So they combine it with something else. Something which seems te be a real problem. Organized fights with dogs, roosters etc. The last bit makes it easy to get the first bit through as long as both are seen as cruelty against an animal.

The same thing is faced with end-to-end encryption used by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, WhatsApp, Telegram and the likes. These kind of techniques were available before Snowden, but hey, who is looking? Now that we now the 3 letter agencies are eavesdropping, all those companies stepped up for their customers (us) and implemented End-to-End encryption.

Now the governments are facing something, they can't look into it anymore. So what do they do? They find something to justify a backdoor of some sorts. Terrorism and child abuse were a good reason. I can't speak for child abuse, but I do know terrorist attacks do happen. When LEA gets all the puzzle pieces afterwards, they can trace back what happened. One attack in Europe used burner phones and SMS text messages. It was THAT simple.

Concluding : we have to give up our privacy to get to something that's either not a problem (zoo sex) or groups that moved away from the techniques they want to monitor, so the only ones being monitored is us.
 
memyself said:
"Never argue with a fool. They drag you down to their level and then beat you on experience."

What you see here is typical law making of the US. First of all, they use the bible for these kind of things. Since it is a deeply religious country, they have no problem in converting bible text into laws. Then they face another problem. I guess nobody really cares about sex with an animal. So they combine it with something else. Something which seems te be a real problem. Organized fights with dogs, roosters etc. The last bit makes it easy to get the first bit through as long as both are seen as cruelty against an animal.

The same thing is faced with end-to-end encryption used by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, WhatsApp, Telegram and the likes. These kind of techniques were available before Snowden, but hey, who is looking? Now that we now the 3 letter agencies are eavesdropping, all those companies stepped up for their customers (us) and implemented End-to-End encryption.

Now the governments are facing something, they can't look into it anymore. So what do they do? They find something to justify a backdoor of some sorts. Terrorism and child abuse were a good reason. I can't speak for child abuse, but I do know terrorist attacks do happen. When LEA gets all the puzzle pieces afterwards, they can trace back what happened. One attack in Europe used burner phones and SMS text messages. It was THAT simple.

Concluding : we have to give up our privacy to get to something that's either not a problem (zoo sex) or groups that moved away from the techniques they want to monitor, so the only ones being monitored is us.
Click to expand...

you have liberals who go against it also. you just need to accept that it is going to be a conservative decade.
 
memyself said:
What you see here is typical law making of the US. First of all, they use the bible for these kind of things. Since it is a deeply religious country, they have no problem in converting bible text into laws. Then they face another problem. I guess nobody really cares about sex with an animal. So they combine it with something else. Something which seems te be a real problem. Organized fights with dogs, roosters etc. The last bit makes it easy to get the first bit through as long as both are seen as cruelty against an animal.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it seems to me that liberals are more anti-zoo than bible thumping conservatives. Or at least that's what it seems like on reddit. They are looking for something to be part of so they can pat themselves on the back, unfortunately that is anti-zoo.
 
Thunder101 said:
Honestly, it seems to me that liberals are more anti-zoo than bible thumping conservatives. Or at least that's what it seems like on reddit. They are looking for something to be part of so they can pat themselves on the back, unfortunately that is anti-zoo.
Click to expand...
Of course.
In the Bible, there were very specific Old Testament laws given to the Hebrews, forbidding sex with animals. That civilization had an extremely specific purpose, and it was important they followed a really tight code of conduct. But if you look at the New Testament, you may notice a complete absence of anything mentioning animal sex.

But liberals (leftists, for those of you not in the USA) are a whole other story. See, their power base is largely caught up in Feminism, which is a power structure which depends on rampant casual sex between men and women. This is why they hate MGTOW so much, because it takes men out of their control due to opting out of the system. Zoos would be the same, and honestly leftists really LOVE all kinds of sexual deviancy except zoophilia. Ask one of them sometime why they think that is. And don't accept an irrational answer such as "Duh, it's obviously disgusting and gross and abuse and so on."
 
Ebonstar said:
Zoos would be the same, and honestly leftists really LOVE all kinds of sexual deviancy except zoophilia. Ask one of them sometime why they think that is. And don't accept an irrational answer such as "Duh, it's obviously disgusting and gross and abuse and so on."
Click to expand...

I would have no issues if leftist called zoo sex gross and obscene, as long as they still supported zoosexual rights. Hell, I'm kind of grossed out by the whole trans and sex change thing but guess what. I still support them, there efforts, and want them to be happy with who they are.
 
As a non-zoo I'd love to chip in and help, but I'd make it worse. I'd have about as much effectiveness as that donkey/horse guy on Jerry Springer. It sucks being socially inept. :(
 
Thunder101 said:
I would have no issues if leftist called zoo sex gross and obscene, as long as they still supported zoosexual rights. Hell, I'm kind of grossed out by the whole trans and sex change thing but guess what. I still support them, there efforts, and want them to be happy with who they are.
Click to expand...

you wont get it from leftists and actually not from some trans.
 
Thunder101 said:
I would have no issues if leftist called zoo sex gross and obscene, as long as they still supported zoosexual rights. Hell, I'm kind of grossed out by the whole trans and sex change thing but guess what. I still support them, there efforts, and want them to be happy with who they are.
Click to expand...
I do not agree with any SPECIAL group rights. I advocate for HUMAN rights.
These would be rights that every single human has, regardless of group.
This is important. It is wrong for certain groups (such as LGBT) to have rights which only apply to them.

And I do agree with you that I don't care what others find gross or disturbing as long as I am left alone to do what I wish in the privacy of my own home... Like everyone should be able to do.
 
I'm assuming the Ohio bill is in response to the law being invalidated in several counties, due to its unorganized nature. Obviously it is not being fought for bestiality, but for other parts of the law. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020...io-counties-one-legislator-wants-to-fix-that/
Anything else in the works for Ohio? The bestiality part of the bill is the same as the law that took effect in 2017. A nice quote in there, "Not only is bestiality abhorrent and cruel, often resulting in serious injury or the death of the animal, it is also a red flag for the likelihood of violence against individuals,” Hoops said in his sponsor testimony on Thursday, “because of its resemblance to human sexual assault in that it involves pain, coercion and lack of consent." Sounds like the truth to me, and no one to question it, so the truth, it shall remain.
 
220licco said:
I'm assuming the Ohio bill is in response to the law being invalidated in several counties, due to its unorganized nature. Obviously it is not being fought for bestiality, but for other parts of the law. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020...io-counties-one-legislator-wants-to-fix-that/
Anything else in the works for Ohio? The bestiality part of the bill is the same as the law that took effect in 2017. A nice quote in there, "Not only is bestiality abhorrent and cruel, often resulting in serious injury or the death of the animal, it is also a red flag for the likelihood of violence against individuals,” Hoops said in his sponsor testimony on Thursday, “because of its resemblance to human sexual assault in that it involves pain, coercion and lack of consent." Sounds like the truth to me, and no one to question it, so the truth, it shall remain.
Click to expand...
How the fuck is that guy a legislator? He has no idea what the fuck he is talking about, and he knows that. Then again, what else is new in US politics?
 
Pillar said:
How the fuck is that guy a legislator? He has no idea what the fuck he is talking about, and he knows that. Then again, what else is new in US politics?
Click to expand...
Everyone's knowledge on this is simplistic, and flawed. No one is attempting to change that. They can't without losing their life. Bob Peterson is the original sponsor for SB 331 in Ohio, in 2016 which banned bestiality. His views are extremely flawed as well, he has a farm in Ohio where they raise livestock. I bet he treats his animals properly.
 
"The legislature further finds that the sexual assault of an animal can be a strong predictor of a tendency to commit other violent and sexual crimes. "
"Not only is bestiality abhorrent and cruel, often resulting in serious injury or the death of the animal, it is also a red flag for the likelihood of violence against individuals"

These kinds of statements really piss me off. They are presented as if anyone who would have sex with an animal could potentially be a violent criminal, but the studies/data only comes from criminal cases. Same applies to "causing injury or death" to animals. They only see the bad stuff, and spin it like this is the way it is with any bestiality. If there was a study that included most-or-all zoophiles and bestialists, I'm willing to bet the percentage of those who force/injure/kill their animals and/or are prone to violence would be an extremely small percentage.
 
Pillar said:
How the fuck is that guy a legislator? He has no idea what the fuck he is talking about, and he knows that. Then again, what else is new in US politics?
Click to expand...

He may know the statistics quite well actually- and there are aggressive persecutors like Jenny Edwards out there spinning those stats into hysteric frothing agenda... -you can read one of her terribly biased 'studies' in the resource section.

It's the stats themselves that are the issue- it's not that they're inaccurate- it's that they're woefully incomplete and have severe bias due to the nature of the limited sample group.

Literally everything that enters the legislative purview and helps form opinion on the topic is based on studies done on incarcerated criminals- often sex-offenders and sexual preditors. No one should be surprised that when you study a group of caught and convicted sex offenders/predators- you find allot of rotten behavior. The people being caught and studied are not representative of the whole demographic of zoo- only the worst of the worst, and the correlation of zoo behavior with everything else is not necessarily indicative of a broader trend in society- even though that's how it's often presented.

Using such inherently flawed stats to define an entire category of interaction, and imagining that these aspects can be extrapolated to the wider world, is absurd, but that's just what the human mind tends to do when dealing with limited information on an emotionally charged topic. The extreme power disparities that exist between humans/animals doesn't help matters...when one side has all the power and the other none- it's very easy to imagine the potential for victimization, and that that aspect would be a desirable and exploited factor to the human in such circumstance...

If you look at older work like Hani Meletski, or even Kinsey's work you get a very different picture of zoo- one that paints a much less biased picture- that human/animal sexual mingling whether fantasy or real, is a very HUMAN thing that happens COMMONLY under certain conditions and it doesn't necessarily translate to or have anything to do with harmful behaviors... But that's not what is reasonably interpreted from the statistics and biased 'studies' that are being put in front of legislators. Correlations, especially narrow ones are not causation- but most people have difficulties not imagining them to be so.
 
Jenny Edwards is a raging cunt. She's the "expert" who claims all bestiality is harmful to the animal, not matter what. So full of shit - and I think she knows it - but that's her claim-to-fame and keeps the money flowing.
 
Bloodwolf said:
I’m a conservative and I don’t have a problem with it. Not sure if that qualifies me to be booted from that standpoint . The only way I can see getting some one to fight for us and not be a zoo them selves would be showing up to a attorney with a boat load of cash and your left nut and pray to the pasta monster .
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg
    Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg
    397.3 KB · Views: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top