11-11-2018, 10:51 AM
Quote:
11 hours ago, covfefelake said:
Washingtons bestiality law was far from the first, according to Rannoch's research on the issue and discussions with a certain undesirable here (Randy Pepe, I think?) as far back as 2001.
Actually nearly a 1/3rd of state laws preceded that one, if he's right. Wikipedia does seem to support the claim, vaguely.
That´s why I wrote "NEW law". Sure, even before the Washington incident from 2005 there was legislation prohibiting sexual contact between bipeds and quadrupeds, but the recent wave of worldwide prohibition of "zoophilia" has its origins in Mr Pinyan´s little "mishap". This incident was the trigger for legislators, it was the first publicly known "big case"; if you ask a random Joe Average, chances are high he doesn´t know anything about zoophilia and bestiality, but he surely knows about "Mr Hands".
You´re right, before "Mr Hands" roughly 1/3rd of US states had laws against "zoophilia", but compare it to the recent status quo AMH (after Mr Hands), with only a few states lacking an "anti zoophilia" law. In Europe, it isn´t much different. Silke Lautenschläger, the former Hessian minister for environment and initiator of the German "anti zoophilia" law, explicitly referred to Mr Hands and the general public picture our community sends when she said "What once was a relatively harmless issue ,with only a few isolated individuals involved in it, has become a real threat for society. Zoophilia today isn´t "the strange but harmless loner living with his animal" anymore, it has mutated into an online sex cult with strong links to the international illegal porn mafia."
And I do share the very same notion when I compare my early years in the "zoo community" to the recent status. It all has become more aggressive and violent, more cultist and detached from society, the infamous filter bubble effect especially showing in "zoophilia boards" like BF. To be honest here, I wasn´t surprised by the huge wave of "zoophilia prohibition" that started a couple of years ago, I´ve seen things going down the gutter long before BF and Mr Hands. A forum that only relies to lip service when it comes to concerns about animal welfare and a community of Washingtonian "zoos" that conjure a picture that is summarised best in the VICE article about MR Hands (" It seems as if these "zoophiles" are nothing more than a bunch of degenerated worshippers of huge dicks...") really isn´t the best foundation to build your public image onto, so nobody should be surprised by the repercussions we all have witnessed in recent years. And nobody in our community seems to realise that it´s exactly this kind of schism between our boldly claimed ideals and actual conduct of "zoophiles" totally negating any ideal that makes us untrustworthy in the eyes of society. Our priorities have been lost , they were sacrificed on the altar of selfish greed, of social dynamics within the "community" , of smug self entitlement regardless of ethics and morale. Me, myself and I, those three are the first ones that come into my mind when I´m thinking about the "zoo community" and what the majority really has in mind. Shrillness and excess. We really cannot blame society for anything here, we literally forced the reaction ourselves. Or does anyone really think all those legislators were eager to deal with "animal fuckery" and looking forward to research it? Usually, it´s always better to leave the normals alone with this, they don´t want to hear about it at all and identify any situation that forces them to deal with it as an attack, so nobody really should be surprised how things went since we added the "zoo activists" to the already devastating public image we had. We literally dug our own graves and now we blame everyone else but ourselves for the status quo...at least, that´s my take on it as a member of the online "zoo" community since the beginning of the nineties.
