Trespassing and acidentally spying on me? That´s why I moved on a farm miles away from villages..and I´m also glad fences were invented to keep unwanted folks out of my yard. The "lump in the vagina" is highly hypothetical: my mare once had a colic that made "rectalisation" (inserting the arm into the rectum to empty the colon) necessary. It was an emergency call and my vet was shoulder deep into my mare ...I literally slept with her 3 hours ago, yet no suspicion raised. I surely only speculate, but I doubt my vet would´ve become suspicious if he had to inspect her vagina. Mares usually pee shortly after intercourse and so they automatically remove all incriminating fluids.
Plus: although we now have a ban on acts of bestiality in Germany , punishment is rather tame. I won´t go in jail for that, the only possible consequence could be a rather small fine and I could temporarily or permanently lose the right to own animals.The latter surely is the worst of all consequences...still I consider most of your scenarios to be highly hypothetical. I cannot imagine a situation in which I just had sex with her and then an emergency takes place. Horses mostly injure their legs by running/falling...and I don´t know how you imagine me sleeping with my mare, but I can assure you that it´s NOT taking place in full gallop...;)
And why should animals, you know, those creatures all zoophiles insist on loving and caring for so much, tolerate a legislation (or the complete lack thereof) that is opening up ALL paths for abuse and exploitation? Why does it seem that this "free zoophilia" puts the stress on "zoophiles" and their rights while an abused animal that is kept away from any instance that could speak on behalf of the voiceless animal has no chance to withdraw from its "lover"? I once had a quite similar dispute with fuzzyfurry and when he said that he rather accepts some animals to be abused by their "zoo" than having even one "zoo" legally persecuted, I was baffled at how quick so called "zoophiles" throw away all love and care when it´s them and their own gratification. Isn´t placing the "zoo" above animal welfare the epitome of bigotry here, with all the fervor our community displays when it comes to animals? Even one asshole abusing and exploiting his animal in the name of "zoophilia" is one too much for me, the added risks the new laws have brought (it never was a good idea to tell anyone you´re into fucking animals, even without any direct laws against it, btw) are to me a tolerable inconvenience...especiall when you consider how much you have to screw up to actually find yourself in prison, at least in Germany.
I also can´t get behind your argumentation of "old sodomy laws" being resurrected. In Germany, the "anti zoo" paragraph is part of the animal welfare law , not civil law. Germany is a rather secular nation in which religion doesn´t play a huge role anymore. There are indeed some influences by religion, but we´re far from turning into a theocracy...Our law against "zoophilia" basically is a "toothless tiger" and many German zoos tend to see it as a simple deterrence tool as well as symbolic jurisdiction. As I said, this law is in effect for nearly five years now and yet, no one ever was jailed because of "zoophilia" and I cannot remember reading about even one incident where a "simple zoophile owner" who abstains from publishing animal porn, fencehopping and holding "fuck parties" with other "zoos" has faced a judge. For me, there´s only one way to influence the "anti zoo" law....by simply preventing it from being applied. Five to ten years without any case that make the appliance of this law necessary and lawmakers will start asking themselves whether this law is obsolete and should be removed. But this is just my perspective....yet, one thing I know for sure is that you will not calm down a rippled water surface by hitting it with a hammer. You let it calm down by NOT hammering at it like a maniac....wu wei, action by non action.
One facet you all tend to swiftly forget in this is that a ban on "zoophilia" isn´t just a simple conflict between authorities and "unjustly treated zoos". Where are the animals in your calculation? The commonly instrumentalised "harm principle" that would open up all possibilities to psychically oppress animals without inflicting actual physical wounds is unfit as a leading principle. So, let me unfold a theoretical scenario : there´s a "zoo" who keeps his dog solely as his personal sex toy. He is NOT physically harming the animal, but uses it as a convenient sex toy whenever he feels like it while totally abandoning it when he´s not "in the mood". The animal does not openly show signs of mistreatment and abuse. So, what should we do in this case? Look away because "zoo rights"? Wouldn´t that totally contradict our own creed? Placing the human´s interest over the animal´s right? Look, I don´t keep bringing up my proposal/idea of regulated zoophilia for nothing but my own ego here, okay? We WILL need a neutral instance of observance and supervision, one that can objectively decide whether the animal suffers from the "zoo relationship". As I said before, gicing this responsibility into the hands of the "zoo" is basically just making the fox into the hen house keeper...or giving a heroin junkie the keys to the opioid storage and letting him alone decide the dosage. We´re in a dilemmma here...screaming for "free zoophilia" without any neutral observance will mostly benefit the wrong ones. Sometimes, it´s way more heroic, consistent and reasonable to actually make compromises than trying to force our heads through a concrete wall. Especially when "free zoophilia" practically is total freedom for fencehoppers, animal porn producers and other dubious individuals. Liberal /libertarian principles are nice to have....until their appliance turns into the cause of suffering. Freedom also is a nice thing...until YOUR freedom collides with the freedom of another being. Americans always talk about freedom of gun ownership...but what about the freedom to live one´s life without being shot as an innocent bystander, an unfortunate person standing at the wrong place in the wrong moment?
So, what is more "zoo"...constant nagging about "zoo freedom" while this idea would deliver many animals to suffering from so called "zoo relations". Or learning to live with a law that most likely will never be applied to you personally if you manage to moderate yourself and keep yourself under the radar , a law that might delete the idea of "Oooh, maybe I could give zoophilia a try" in many adventurous and irresponsible folks? To me, the latter is more zoo...placing the animal´s wellbeing above your own convenience...or, as the original zeta rules word it "The animal ALWAYS comes first!" If only ONE animal is spared from a life in misery and abuse, I as a zoophile am happy to give a part of my freedom, I am willing to tolerate an "unjust" law for this one animal. That´s what zoophilia should be about...the animal always comes first....
