02-27-2018, 03:08 AM
In the earlier days, people frequently posted essays like this as a kind of "carte du entree" for all those zoo forums out there. This seems to be one of them, sadly not a very well written one. The real disaster for us is that many of the flaws and mistakes this old essay has are mindlessly perpetuated and repeated, even today you occasionally run across basically the same "arguments"...and as back then, they usually won´t hold any longer than a snowball in hell.
Funny how this essay starts by taking a blow into the direction of religion, but let´s be honest, the "our sect is special because we´re the only one that understands...."....say, isn´t that a pretty common thing to say for the "zoo sect" too? Australian aborigines blessed us with a word for this...funnily, their traditional hunting weapon carries the same name...;)
But behold, our hero quickly shifts towards the famous "harm principle", a flawed perspective...or would you say that "gently raping someone who´s under the influence of anaesthetics" isn´t rape, yet no harm is done, neither physical nor psychological harm because the raped one hasn´t conciously lived through "the experience"? What most don´t get here is that the harm principle may offer guidance when it comes to bodily harm stuff, but this principle totally fails when other factors are involved in the equation. I can easily tie up a mare, corner her in her box and immobilise her with a multitude of different means, yet don´t inflict any physical harm on her....but no one would call this a mutually enjoyed experience..at least I hope so. And to evaluate the psychological effects of acts of bestiality (zoo or just "plain and simple beasty stuff", doesn´t matter), it takes more than some self proclaimed "animal experts" in an animal fucker community. Even experts (real experts on the field of behavioural studies) can´t agree on even a single species´ expressions, so thinking that fucking an animal miraculously makes anyone into an expert is just hilarious. Yes, we do know more than people who never ever would touch an animal with sexual intent, but that´s it, folks...no miraculous transformation into a myriad of Dr Dolittles here. I wish we all could stop this narrative once and for all.
So, the author hops over to randomly pulling out examples of what he/she thinks is "unharmful"....but let´s see whether the author is actually correct on every entry of his list:
- being drunk may not harm someone except the drunkard himself directly, that much is right, but when you expand the perspective a little, things don´t seem to be so easily definable. What if the drunkard´s family isn´t fond of this guy´s alcohol usage? What if the occasional drunkard develops a drinking habit? And has the author heard about the negative effects of co-dependency in families with an alcoholic? What about DUI? What about destroying some other car driver´s life because you were intoxicated and accidentally walked or fell onto the street, in front of this guy´s car, without any chance for him to avoid the collision?
-Marijuana....well, I am a pothead myself. But even with that being said , I do recognise the multitude of possible dangers that come along with dope. I know much of the money that´s made with cannabis on the illegal market will end up in the hands of terrorists...name one terrorist group and I´ll swear they fund their "war" with drug money, mostly with cannabis products and cocaine. And although I´d be the first one to demand decriminalisation of cannabis in any town hall meeting, I am also aware of the enormous risk totally legal and unregulated(!) cannabis distribution can and definitely will have. Smoking a joint every now and then is fun...but I´ve also gone through a long phase of getting baked 24/7 in my life. I know the risk of losing one´s life focus by travelling the "gesternmorgenheuteland" (Yeasterdaytomorrowtodayland...fellow potheads know what I mean) too much. I´ve met many other smokers who couldn´t handle it properly...and I´ve met some who ended up in psychiatry with a massive psychosis triggered by cannabis smoking. Even I as a longtime smoker would not like to see a total legalisation of cannabis without proper regulations. People always tend to overdo stuff if they aren´t slowed down by well placed corrective measurements.
-Prostitution....well, as a German living in a country that fully legalised prostitution a couple of years ago, I can say with certainty that the hippiesque "legalise everything, then world peace will come" crap isn´t solving anything. Hookers are still trafficked, tricked into it, forced to obey any customer´s every wish and so on....not one problem with prostitution was solved with legalisation. And I won´t even speak about the "flatrate fucking" many brothels offered, especially those residing on Germany´s borders...if you want to see an army of horny frenchmen invading Germany every weekend, just visit the German-French border region and see how all that Legalisation stuff turns out in real life.
With that being dealt, let´s come to this talk about "victims" and government...as an Anarchist, I do bear some sympathy for some of the viewpoints the author utters here, but as a realist anarchist, I do know for certain that thinking in categories is the true weak point here. What all of those theories about victims and government don´t incluude is human nature. Before I go off into a page long rant about everything, I prefer reading some of the basic books for Anarchists...read Michail Bakunin, read Proudhomme, read Landauer, Anarchy, by the way, is commonly misunderstood as "do anything that pleases you" when in fact, it is more of an "order without authorities" concept. What people usually mean when using the A-word in reality is chaos, with the ego being the only one authority. Besides that, it´s hilarious how the author imagines religions in his ideal state...gods fighting gods...wow, isn´t that what ISIS does right now? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
"Can harm be committed against a creature that has no real rights?"....Wow, is he/she actually saying that animals have no real rights? Lemme just check if I´m still in "zooland" or accidentally was redirected to the butcher´s guild by my browser... [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> well, today, animals HAVE rights, albeit just limited rights. Honestly, folks, I never understood how any of us can even think of using the same repulsive approach the author is using here. He degrades animals to things by drawing all these parallels, arguing that "if we don´t care for animal´s rights in so many other sectors, why should we care about them when sex is involved?". This may seem like a cunning answer, using "their" mindset against them, but this kind of intellectual judo backfires miserably when we remember what we want to be seen as. We, the zoos, we should be the ALTERNATIVE to this kind of repulsive thinking about animals, not just another group that profits from the usual "humanthink"! Even today I see plenty of people fall into the same trapdoor, even today people sabotage any effort to offer a real alternative by using that old and worn out rubbish "defense". This kind of argument only deepens the notion that we zoos truly have only one thing in mind and that is our own sexual gratification; animals don´t matter at all and the only thing worth fighting against is the "terrible injustice" of not being able to abuse and mistreat our quadruped companions the very same way all the others do. How can anyone demanding equal human superiority rights for animal fuckers even remotely think of himself as a legit zoophile? Isn´t it equality we´re striving for?
"All animals have defenses..." Yes, true, nearly all animals have the potential to defend themselves. But what most people using this "animals can defend themselves" yaddayadda forget is that most domesticated animals are bred for their obedience and servitude towards humans. A "kicker", a horse that attacks humans is destined to end in a sausage pretty quick..a dog biting a human will be put down in most of the cases. Bovines who are aggressive towards humans will soon end on the counter of your local fast "food" shack and their DNA will be thrown into the dust bin. That´s what reality is like, folks. We breed them to be obedient and submissive. We select them by this criterium. We disencourage and even punish any offensive behaviour in any animal we breed. So, any zoo who doesn´t train his dog for pit fights should never pull out that old and ridiculously malinformed "defense" of zoophilia if he doesn´t want to make a total fool out of himself.
I´m glad the author also addressed what I call "pedozoophilia" or, more accurately, pedobestiality. I can´t describe how much I want to throw up in my mouth when I come across the typical "sucked by calf" videos platforms like BF have plenty of...and I remember how quickly things became nasty when some random user asked what the right age for his dog to be penetrated is. The horrifying undertone of many replies still resonates in me and almost made me lose faith in anything "we" zoos do or say....as I said it so many times before, principles are worth shit when they´re only used as a deflectory shield when in conflict with the outside world, but are quickly dismissed when pants are unzipped.
"Back a few years, it seemed that many religions at least tolerated bestiality...." Uhm...how about no?!? No religion tolerated bestiality, and especially not the montheistic ones. Even buddhists don´t gather good karma by having sex with an animal...and don´t mention you fucked a cow when a hinduist is present...or you will quickly realise how utterly wrong this perception is. Unless this text was written some three thousand years ago, this statement holds absolutely no truth whatsoever. Although there are some areas in this world where having sex with an animal is permitted to a certain extend, like North African regions with their proverbial fuckdonkeys or some remote region in South America (Vice report), one should never consider that a "free ride"...in those regions, animals are seen as a cheap outlet for juvenile males and their sexual energy, but not because there is tolerance for zoophilia on a large scale, but simply for the reason that fucking a donkey is completely safe from producing unwanted offspring that otherwise will result in stirring the traditions ( young ones usually are "promised" to another family to strenghten interfamiliary bonds) and create another mouth to feed.
And finally: as someone who had Latin as his first and ancient Greek as his second foreign language in school, let me destroy some myths about those "horny and bestiality tolerant" old ones. Pasiphae was punished by Zeus with "zoophilia", copulating with a bull was seen as a punishment and degradation for both Pasiphae AND Midas, her husband. Zeus odered them to sacrifice a bull in his name, but due to its outstanding physical features, both refused to sacrifice that bull and so, Zeus got a bit nasty with them both. By the way, the offspring of that , the Minotaurus (literally translated: the bull of Minos) was seen as a monstrosity and as a defining of nature, Minos hid this creature in his labyrinth from everyone´s eyes, so much for that myth of "tolerated zoophilia" in ancient times, folks, and it took Aeneas to kill this beast by the help of Ariadne who ensured that Aeneas found his way back out of the labyrinth by handing him a spool of yarn...the proverbial thread of Ariadne.
And now for Leda and the swan: Usually portrayed as Leda having sex with a swan, older versions of that myth never even mentioned interspecies sex. Leda never had actual sex with the goddamn swan, folks. Zeus, being the horny idiot he is, transformed himself into a swan because he wanted Leda for himself, but contrary to the common belief, Zeus mated with another avian that is not identifiably described in the myth. Leda only watched Zeus copulate with another bird, guys.
Regarding the assumed "tolerance" for bestiality in ancient times, both the Greek and the Romans frequently used penetration by male animals as punishment for women guilty of adultery and such. There even were public executions of women in the circus maximus/Colosseum where women were tied down and suffered a painful death by being penetrated by usually large animals. Despite common beliefs, the assumed "animal brothels" in Pompeii, the ones that are pulled out by zoos often when trying to assure others how "natural" sex with animals is and forgotten whenever modern animal prostitution comes up (^^), seem to not have been actual animal brothels. Some may know that these *etablissements* were "themed", there were "horse houses", "dog houses" etc...but recent research found out that these places may only have been "normal" brothels with no animals around but those depicted on the brothel´s walls for added excitement. Not one of the alleged "horse houses" had signs of real horses being kept there, no fencing, no binding posts, no area to store the vast amounts of food for the animals...so these "animal brothels" could easily have been nothing more than some sort of "walk in animal porn" for all those suffering from mixoscopia bestialis, that retarded form of "zoophilia" that gets its excitement from watching females being penetrated by male animals. Don´t just swallow the convenient, do some research, guys. Ancient times were no "zoophilia heaven" and Alexander The Great never had sex with Boukephalos (lat.bos, bovis = bull and greek: kephalos = head a.k.a. Bullhead) and only made his horse a consul to mock the other consuls. No one of us would have survived the ancient times with our orientation...you could get killed for denying submissiveness to any noble one. Don´t get fooled by fiction just because it fits your own hopes and beliefs. Zoophilia needs thinkers , not wankers, guys... [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
