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

Legal zoo countries.

It is not legal most places. Some places it is not illegal. Big differenc.

jard to say with Japan because they define it very differently. At one point they had a tv show that openly depicted it (some what like Fear Factor In other countries), but the government came crashing down on them hard.
 
I’ve have read in Portugal it isn’t illegal. Also sex with an animal in West Virginia isn’t illegal; but still could be prosecuted under animal cruelty. Not to sound like a I told you so but almost any where you are some things should remain private and behind closed doors!
 
shepherdsshadow said:
I’ve have read in Portugal it isn’t illegal. Also sex with an animal in West Virginia isn’t illegal; but still could be prosecuted under animal cruelty. Not to sound like a I told you so but almost any where you are some things should remain private and behind closed doors!
Click to expand...
Yeah it fact that zoophilia will always be a taboo in society its not normal for society but behind the curtains ?
 
It doesnt really matter if it is or it isnt. Even if its not illegal you can and prob will still get hit with charges for animal abuse
 
Yeah and I don’t believe there’s any states where bestiality itself is still legal that and it’s pretty much always been illegal to produce and distribute related content

and that all in a nutshell is why practicing good opsec is very important for people in our community
 
Put it this way WV doesn’t have a law on the books directly against this, but they are trying just hasn’t passed last two sessions.
 
If you don't speak fluent Japanese, it's really hard to meet people that actually have fun with animals here...

If it's legal, it's very hard to enter in this world as a foreigner... to me it's like an underground universe ^^'
 
what I know is that you can easily find bestiality hentai comics in shops like Mandarake and events like Kemoket or Comiket
 
The Japanese judicial system is very different than the US. They can hold you for months without filing charges or granting you a lawyer. They can accuse you of whatever they want and the burden is on you to prove you didn’t do it. My advice would be tread lightly….especially if you’re in the military.
 
I not sure but in Idaho it seems like there isn’t explicit laws against it but I didn’t dig deeper for now
 
More states have passed laws since this GIF was created. Many laws were passed because someone got caught fence hopping. There was an uproar when people found out the fence hopper could only be prosecuted for trespassing.

Notice states where it was a misdemeanor did not seem to increase penalties. Also just because the penalties are light (misdemeanor) doesn't you have little to worry about. It may still be classed as a sex crime which means you might be entered into the sex offender registry. Also there may be an attempt to prosecute under animal cruelty laws.

I think the main effect of misdemeanor vs felony is there won't be as much effort into catching people in states where it's a misdemeanor.

I've also noticed most people you hear about getting caught were also guilty of being stupid. Police and prosecutors even have a term for it, "felony stupid."

zoolegality98to141.gif
 
Last edited:
in spain is Sex with animals allowed, when the animals get not hurt... Iam surprise that this kind of Sex, is soooo illegal all around the world... 😢
Iam absolutely agreed, when the animals Take hurts, give the human 1000% back.
But i dont Unterstand whats the Problem when a Male Dog has fun, with the holes from a FEMALE human....
 
Mesond said:
Did some digging and it looks like Germany is more tolirent of it. Even though it's technically illigal. Just one problem with that. Means a different language.
Click to expand...
In Germany, the question of legality is a little difficult (warning, I am not a lawyer). It used to be legal since 1969, but in 2012/2013, moralistic busybodies tried to reintroduce the ban after a (AFAIK never actually confirmed) story about animal brothels in an otherwise irrelevant newspaper. However, the actual wording which made it into law was kind of vague as it banned "to use an animal for your own sexual acts or to train or make it available for sexual acts by third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to its species" (Deepl Translation, couldn't find an official English version of the law).

This mess ended up in front of the constitutional court which rejected the complaint but in the process explained the ban. Here is the original decision and the press release (warning, concentrated German legalese). The court basically latched onto the part after the "thereby", interpreting it as a condition for illegality rather than a description.

Google translate of the important parts of the decision:
The offense under Section 3, Sentence 1, No. 13 of the Animal Welfare Act is limited in two respects by the characteristics of "sexual acts" and "forcing" animals to engage in "behavior that is contrary to the species." These vague legal terms are not defined in the contested Animal Welfare Act or in the explanatory memorandum to the law. However, they are open to closer interpretation by way of interpretation (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); their meaning is derived from their literal meaning (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) and corresponds to everyday language usage. In addition, these are terms that are also used in other laws and in the Animal Welfare Act itself. It can be assumed that there is broad agreement about their narrower meaning (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) and that they can therefore be further specified by the courts.
[...]
bb) The concept of “appropriate to the species” or “unacceptable to the species” is also not foreign to the law. It is a term commonly used in animal protection law that refers to the keeping and accommodation of animals (cf. Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act, Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance).

The term "unnatural" behavior is also closely related to the other element of the offence of "forcing" to engage in such behavior, which has a limiting effect on the offence. According to the justification for the law, "forcing" should be possible both through physical force and in other ways (cf. BTDrucks 17/11811, p. 28). An interpretation based on the system of Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act and with regard to the meaning and purpose of the ban shows that this other form of coercion must be behavior that is comparable to the use of physical force.

On the one hand, the term is also used in Section 3, Sentence 1, No. 11 of the Animal Welfare Act, where it refers to forcing the animal to move by means of direct electrical current, which causes the animal considerable pain, suffering or damage. On the other hand, the term "forcing" used by the legislator in Section 3, Sentence 1, No. 13 of the Animal Welfare Act must be distinguished from the wording chosen in Section 3, Sentence 1, Nos. 1 and 1a of the Animal Welfare Act, according to which it is forbidden to "demand" from an animal to perform tasks that it is unable to perform due to its physical condition. In any case, it is sufficient here if the terms used are open to interpretation and can be made more specific through the application of the law.
Click to expand...
 
SemPavor said:
In Germany, the question of legality is a little difficult (warning, I am not a lawyer). It used to be legal since 1969, but in 2012/2013, moralistic busybodies tried to reintroduce the ban after a (AFAIK never actually confirmed) story about animal brothels in an otherwise irrelevant newspaper. However, the actual wording which made it into law was kind of vague as it banned "to use an animal for your own sexual acts or to train or make it available for sexual acts by third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to its species" (Deepl Translation, couldn't find an official English version of the law).

This mess ended up in front of the constitutional court which rejected the complaint but in the process explained the ban. Here is the original decision and the press release (warning, concentrated German legalese). The court basically latched onto the part after the "thereby", interpreting it as a condition for illegality rather than a description.

Google translate of the important parts of the decision:
Click to expand...
While some make laws to restrict sexual liberties like zoophilia or exhibitionism, other say that miss money to protect people agaisn islamic terrorism.. Question of priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top