http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/germany-plans-to-outlaw-sex-with-animals-a-869402.html
Many of you may be familiar with the law that is being tossed around German parliament at the moment, intending to re-criminalize sex with animals. I personally know little about what is going on there, which I suppose helps anyone intent on discovering who I am as they now know that I am either not German or else I am very sneaky.
In any case, though, while this news is absolutely terrible for any zoos in Germany -- and really, eventually, all of Europe -- it does come with a hefty silver lining: zoo rights group ZETA is showing its face and opposing the movement.
A month or two prior to today, I had contact with a member of ZETA via email. We had an excellent discussion about some sensitive topics, and particularly how best to achieve greater tolerance from the public. Now, I am thrilled to hear that, at least to some extent, they are putting themselves into action when they are most needed.
Unfortunately, it seems sometimes their message is being taken the wrong way by people. This article spends much of its time relating the group to people running sex farms and painting their dogs' claws with nail polish. Another logical fallacy comes in when they quote a vet who notes that it is abusive for dogs to have sex outside of their heat cycles, purely because they are heat cycles (to which we, as enlightened individuals, respond, "So women can only have sex for a few days per month?")
So it seems there is a ways to go: what needs to be done is for a solid line to be drawn. We can't be viewed as people who just think sex with animals is great and let's all be free and use the critters however we please. We need to let the public know that we hate sex farms and abusers, if anything, even more than they do. A common enemy is the best way to forge an alliance; the public just needs to be shown that this enemy exists, and it's not us.
I also think that more than one person -- as it is now -- need to get their face out there. Write to news stations or to relevant politicians who are likely to be sympathetic. Tell people your story. It's mentioned again and again in these articles just how common zoosexuality is, but it's also implied again and again that all or almost all of these individuals are delusional and selfish animal abusers. People don't go looking for the truth in this incredibly taboo area; they want to stay as far from it as possible and continue hating it, so we really do need to get up in their faces ourselves at this crucial time.
ZETA's website.
Dec 9, 2012: A fantastic interview by Mr Kiok.
Labels
abuse
activism
animal rights
Anonymous
anthropomorphization
anthrosexuality
badgers
BDSM
bears
BeastForum
bestiality
biology
Canada
cats
community
Descartes
dogs
domestication
education
evolution
faunoiphilia
feminism
film
fox hunt
furry
gender
Good Time
health
Heavy Petting
history
homosexuality
horses
image
interspecies relations
labeling
language
legislation
literature
love
media
morality
neutering
news
paraphilias
pedophilia
PETA
Peter Singer
philosophy
pornography
primates
psychology
rage
rape
religion
research
S&M
sex
sexuality
social
song
statistics
terms
video
video games
violence
vorephilia
ZETA
zooerasty
ZoophilesForum
zoophilia
zoosexuality
Friday, November 30, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
A Tale of Forbidden Love
This video, with a whopping ~1,000 views, has got a bit of attention within the zoo community. So in an effort to break semi-permanently from my hiatus, I am going to talk about it.
A brief synopsis: A man, in a voice-over, talks about his romantic love for his dog, who looks to be a golden lab for you canine aficionados out there. It's all very sweet, quite melancholy with a bit of humour to it, and though the kissing scene has been noted even by several dog lovers I know/read as really weird and awkward, its heart seems to be in the right place as this couple reclines in simple enjoyment of their secret romance. In the end, though, come the police and misguided animal welfare activists to take away the pooch, before a woman walking her dog proclaims the man a "dog fucker" followed by a cut to the credits. The film isn't long, though, so I still recommend you watch it so you can understand what I'm about to say about it.
I know I'm kind of an inflammatory guy; my harsh remarks against COMING SOON (which, by the way, does turn out to be a total hoax; the website for EFA was built after the video and the organization itself does not exist originally, so there) got me my first external links. But I'm not going to completely tear apart Forbidden Love. It does paint a picture of a scene not significantly departed from reality. It shows a mutual, loving relationship that, if a little, almost imperceptibly strange sometimes, seems legitimate enough. Most importantly, it depicts a story of romance that is inherently tragic right from the beginning: something that is misunderstood, forcibly covert, and inevitably doomed, and tries to tug at the heartstrings of the viewers and gain their sympathy. Overall, for the majority of the film, it at least resembles a piece I might show a visually-oriented and empathetic person who is critical of zoophilia.
But then there is the ending. The ending that makes you realize that this is not a film made to actually break new barriers, or challenge mindsets or educate or whatever the above might imply. It was made entirely for the sake of art, and in this case, the genre is a very dry and hollow comedy that adores its own internal irony: after all the amour, the suspense, the pleading and the heartbreak, there comes an old lady scowling and accusing with the utmost exaggerated blatancy, "Dog fucker!" while her tiny puppy hides behind her legs, and the credits roll to a strange peppy tune. The intent is to make fun of the rest of the film, and to make fun of the audience in doing so: to say, "Hey, you weren't just feeling sorry for an animal abuser, were you? Sick!" To emphasize this profanity, there are the variety of archaic images depicting zooerasty flashing on the screen as the credits roll, which nearly everyone expressing themselves in the comments noticed. As far as the irony goes, I feel that it for the most part went over the heads of the audience, although a few do catch it and even the publisher on YouTube (who was not involved in the creation of the film) places it in the category of "Comedy".
So personally, I feel that this video is not the big break that some have seen it as. Yes, it puts zoophilia on the table, but at its core, even if it goes unnoticed, it still approaches it in the same way it always is: as the butt of a joke. Between that and documentaries with nothing but lies, or the wrong sorts of people represented, we have a long way to go before zoos are ever given anything that can be called a fair chance in mass media. But that's just my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)