11-11-2018, 11:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2018, 11:32 PM by covfefelake.)
Quote:
12 hours ago, 30-30 said:
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".
No, all the old sodomy statues were struck down (including bestiality which was usually in the same grouping) in the very early 2000s via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas so technically all the laws are pretty new and at worst, less than 2 decades old. In reality, it looks like most were passed during the "ASAIRS" timeframe that Rannoch has a lot on. The whole 1/3rd preceding the Mr Hands thing actually appear to have passed in the early 2000s. Looks like Missouri was somewhat controversial back then too, courtesy another guy who went on Jerry Springer if Rannoch's docs can be believed.
There was actually a brief period of no legislative activity right before Mr Hands it seems, when ASAIRS dissolved. So maybe you are somewhat right.
The guy on the Springer episode that didn´t air was George Willard a.k.a. Hossie a.k.a. "The Horseman" Mark Matthews, author of the "zoo bible"...and a badly tattooed knobhead desperately trying to sell his beastiality "needs" as zoophilia. Died in the end of the nineties or around the millennium shift and found it a good idea to "go public" as some kind of twisted heritage for the "zoo community".
Well, I haven´t put the major batch of my attention onto US laws regarding zoophilia and bestiality, I just know the basics. We Europeans usually are baffled by the 50 separate states with their own laws plus the federal laws...and when it comes to "you aren´t allowed to fart on Easter sunday between midnight and 4.30 AM in Minnesota" type of laws, we Europeans usually laugh. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> But I have followed the European development of "anti zoo" legislation since I became aware of my orientation (end of the eighties) and can say that it´s quite a huge difference between the anglosphere (USA and UK) and the rest of Europe. Our laws are pretty permissive and usually show some kind of "clemency" towards caught "zoos". Without Mr Pinyan and all the hassle his case has generated and the following masses of "zoo activists" like the ZETA group (formed in 2009) , things would be different. At least for the European zoos.
Nonetheless, I still have to discover a case where "non intrusive zoophilia" ( no fencehopping, no publication of animal porn etc.) has led to a conviction on both sides of the Atlantic. Most cases end up in front of a judge because the "zoos" screwed up themselves and brought the attention of authorities onto themselves.
There are ways to use laws against someone without a conviction.
Quote:
21 hours ago, 30-30 said:
WGW, about the porn issue, my point still stands. It´s not important whether or not the animal is harmed or whatever, it´s solely about what image someone who publishes animal porn is handing out to the public. You cannot claim deep and genuine love for your animal, but then you pour your little wank flix into the trough of the international wanking community. It´s about the human and the morals , not about the animal and possible negative consequences...although the consequences shouldn´t be neglected. I know of a couple of cases where the animal´s fur pattern has led to identification of the animal and , of course, its owner. I don´t know how you see it, but I have massive problems believing that it´s "true love" for the animal when you not only display that massive anthropocentrism (in the end, it´s the human who decides whether or not the "exciting new clip" gets uploaded), but also are indifferent about increasing the risk of exposal. And all of that just for "fame" in the "community", a possible few coins more in your pocket while the runners of BF allegedly sit on their platinum toilets, wiping their asses with 100 dollar bills and "download credits".Those who "sell" their love aren´t in love. That´s what I wanted to say.
I can agree there, I wouldn't do it myself: though I guess for me I don't have a problem with the concept of 'animal porn' overall. But you are right, most do it for fame, 'props' in the 'communities' like BF, and money. The risk of being identified is horridly high too: especially with fur pattern or an exotic species like a wolf, zebra, or some other uncommon creature.
Then again, I'm 100% against 'animal sharing' as well: for health of the human and the animal involved. Plus not being familiar with the quadruped in question can lead to injury of one or both (Ken was a prime example, unfamiliar stallion: too big too fast....). Also, I can't stand society or 'morality' these days: morality is subjective anyways, but sadly as humans we must deal with humans. We must communicate and function within the bounds of society or hide underground as we do now, and the fore mentioned incidents are reason for such hiding.
I will tell and discuss with friends I can trust, but family doesn't know and never will: I also don't do that 'PROUD ZOO' shit you see people do for attention on social media.
Also, something of note: in 'recent' anti-beast states like mine (Ohio) before the law was passed, you could still be charged. The tactic is called 'Creative Prosecution', if there's no law directly against a 'bad', 'immoral' or 'unethical' act: you use another charge to pin someone down for being an idiot or gross (I have family in Law Enforcement and Corrections, so I know some of the background tactics well: they're not always 'dirty', but more like 'cheeky' most of the time to let someone know they've been a blundering moron...). Even my past experiences could have been prosecuted: even with no harm dome to the animal, or myself, or no law against said actions.
So, even if your country, state, or province doesn't have direct laws against it: please don't take hundreds of pictures, hours of video: or fuck your partner in the goddamn street. It only serves to make you look like an idiot and make the rest of us look even worse. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
Heh, topic may have derailed a little, but some good viewpoints as always floating around.
I totally support your "derailment", it's your thread anyway, and good points made......
11-12-2018, 02:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-12-2018, 02:23 PM by caikgoch.)
"Even my past experiences could have been prosecuted: even with no harm dome to the animal, or myself, or no law against said actions. "
That is the problem with this whole subject. Our government is supposed to be based on the harm principal. That is why Lawrence v Texas. Anything else is NOT rule of law.
Makes no difference, the view is the same: loss of liberty, loss of animals' lives, sex offender registry, public ostracism.
Quote:
6 hours ago, caikgoch said:
"Even my past experiences could have been prosecuted: even with no harm dome to the animal, or myself, or no law against said actions. "
That is the problem with this whole subject. Our government is supposed to be based on the harm principal. That is why Lawrence v Texas. Anything else is NOT rule of law.
Yes. From a prosecution standpoint that's how it's supposed to work. Reality vs what's written down often differ though.
And what I was refering to with my comment was a bit more vague, but all the same relevant. Rannoch's case: His folks guilted him for years, and threatened to turn him in or otherwise socially ruin him to keep him medicated and sedated. His only outlet for outcry was online and as we can now see he did that rather regularly but in real life he was very mild mannered and almost afraid to speak his mind. I only wish I'd picked up on why.
Having laws on the book that enable one to threaten and blackmail like that to control an individual can be their own problem.
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....
Quote:
2 hours ago, 30-30 said:
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!
A persecuted minority often develops a persecution complex. That doesn't make the persecution any more correct.
|
