11-12-2018, 11:14 PM
WGW, this "inventive" usage of other laws due to the lack of direct "anti zoo" laws isn´t new to me. We had a couple of those in pre 2013 Germany too. I guess that was another reason for "them" to go "all in" by installing "no animal fiddling" laws. But , and here I´m coming back to my usual standpoint regarding laws, you really have to be totally careless and idiotic to end up in front of a judge for "zoophilia" anyway. This is easily avoided by not feeding the porn industry with private clips online, keeping off other peoples´ pastures and watching your mouth. Shouldn´t be too hard IMHO, three easily followable rules. I´d rather place my hope in educating our "community" about these three than in abolishing the "anti zoo" laws , against massive public resistance (...just imagine the headlines... " Land X re-allows animal fucking!"...just take a look at the public outrage when Canada was adjusting their laws and accidentally left a small window open for the bestialists...), against the majority of society. Won´t happen. At least not in the way all those "zoo activists" are imagining it. With the "victims" being biologically unable to walk into the next police station and snitch on you, it´s all dependent on how dilligently the "zoo" is watching his own private info. Silence is golden, especially when it comes to zoophilia. Conspirative mindsets, not loud mouths and drama queens, that´s what keeps the judges away.
On Pinyan, or "Ken": Too big too fast...well , add too drunk and we´ve got a winner. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> But IMO, Pinyan´s case perfectly illustrates what´s basically wrong with all of this. He became this iconic figure for zoophilia although all evidence points into the opposite direction. A alleged extreme masochist that´s been said to have become bodily numbed due to a motorcycle accident and using passive homosexual intercourse with large animals "to feel something again". On a farm of somebody else. With other peoples´ animals without their knowledge and consent. All prejudices against us "pervo animal fuckers" affirmed. That´s the real sad ending of Pinyan´s story to me. If we only could stop affirming the public over and over again, we´d win a big battle. Not the war, but a big and important battle. If we´d only stop gifting society with endless ammunition, the bullets fired into our direction would inevitable become less and less over time. The only way to get rid of the "anti zoo" laws is to starve them out until someone in the legislation may say "We haven´t had a case of this in ten or twenty years now. Do we still need this law?" But this would demand some discipline from our community, including the beasties...so, screw it and learn to live with the sword of Damocles swinging above our heads. Pinyan = best example why things are as they are.
On the harm principle: for me, this debate about how the law should subjugate under a single principle is a kind of decoy for me. It is oversimplifying the matter, leaving out a huge portion of relevant issues. And by the way, you can inflict harm without noticing it as well as it is possible to impose harm onto an animal that will only show much later in behaviour of the animal. And all of that while we´re still discussing what harm actually is. Is it harmful when I tie and corner a mare and have sex with her? And what about the harm our community inflicts on society by trying to popularise "zoophilia" with a never empty cornucopia of animal porn? I´ve read in BF more than once "Seen clip X, been hooked ever since" , hinting at the advertising "value" of these little clips. Porn creates new "zoos"....and usually those types of "zoos" that better would stay off our turf. What about the harm that´s inflicted on the owner of a fencehopped animal when he/she learns that his/her beloved animal has been "visited"? As a riding instructor living and sleeping in the riding club , I´ve had the "pleasure" to run across a few of those "harmless" fencehoppers and also had the immense "pleasure" to report the nightly attacks to the respective animal owners. Legislation is a massively complicated process and is doomed to fail some ...legislation isn´t fucking Star Trek, there´s no "First Directive" , but a multitude of facets and issues to be addressed. Even more interests and demands from various interest groups. Law is always a compromise...maybe if our community would drop that stubborn attitude of "my way or the highway" and try to figure out ways in which compromises for ALL parties involved can be achieved, we´d be better off by now. Regulated zoophilia: one animal only, with psychological checkups for the zoos and regular, but spontaneous visits by a neutral vet ensuring the physiological and psychological wellbeing of the animal involved. Freedom within the boundaries of a set of rules, not "free dumb" and "zoophilia" as a sexual playground for the perverted and limitless. WE owe society, not the other way around.
And one final note on the Harm Principle: you cannot demand legislation to stick to this when our community isn´t too hesitant on supporting all those "poor caught zoophiles" despite having done harm to the animal. I remember how the vast majority of members in the zoo subreddit jumped to the defence of the Espenau fencehopper, the one who has been beaten into a coma. Although the reports clearly stated that he hurt the mare he was "fisting" while masturbating, with photos proving this by showing his bloody handprints all over the stables he was invading, almost everyone came up with the "Fake news" bit and doubted that the report was accurately written. Guys, there was a shitload of photos with bloody handprints! And you still defended this asshole! And you really have the audacity to demand shackling legislators to a sole principle you don´t follow yourselves? Huh? Really? The Espenau case is not the only one showing this deep schism, that schizophrenic and selective application of principles...can you really blame "the other side", our "antagonists" of not doing something while you give a shit on it yourselves? Just my two cents....
