Hello! This is your daily reminder that it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with your dog as long as: 1.) It's physically possible to have sex with the dog without causing physical injury, and you proceed without the intention of harm. 2.) The dog initiates every interaction, and every interaction ends immediately upon the dog's slightest expression of displeasure. (This counters the consensual imbalance of power between humans and dogs.) 3.) You don't incorporate any sexual abnormalities not typically observed in canine sexual behavior (i.e. BDSM, scat, breath play, etc) 4.) You don't coerce the dog into cooperation. (Coercion, in this instance, refers but isn't limited to (a) punishment or the threat of punishment, (b) reward or the promise of reward, and (c) manipulative tactics like the use of peanut butter.) 5.) You don't brute force the interaction with the animal. 6.) You don't involve anyone, human or otherwise, who doesn't express somehow that they actively want to be involved.
Bestiality can be beneficial to the animal's health and happiness if done correctly. Now that you're all caught up on zoophile morality, you're free to leave this thread and have a nice day!
Why not just use toys? You're devaluing yourself by having sex with lesser beasts.
Christian Hill
They're really good house partners outside of sex. And they're fun to live with on a daily basis without stress. Also, they feel really great and seem to enjoy sex with no strings attached. They're just positive energy.
Toys are what some people use them as. For others it's a lifestyle.
You know, I'm not entirely sure if this is the same dude or just someone who copied the last dipshits post from like a week ago. Either way OP you're in desperate need of a lobotomy. Don't have sex with animals, you pathetic asshole.
fucking retard detected. I will be laughing at you when you get hit with cuckimony, cuck. And still blowing hot loads while you got nothing but your limp dick working 80 hours a week at Kmart. Fag.
>Why not just use toys? Toys exert no enthusiasm. >You're devaluing yourself by having sex with lesser beasts. I disagree.
>So are gays and interracial. Hey, now! Let's keep this thread hate-free.
The same for goes for you.
Gabriel White
Please kill yourslef please please please do it
Adrian Foster
No, you won't. Because you literally have no idea what you're talking about. You're just pissed off and slinging bullshit at me to try and hurt my feelings or get a rise out of me but none of that even made sense.
Nathan Sanders
I wish this thread would die honestly.
Charles Clark
No I'm not, I am technically spouting statistics about marriage at that point lmao
Your lack of understanding of biology is why we have dumbass posts.
All STD's from animals come from eating them, not fucking them. AIDS, Syphillis, and others are random mutations that come from eating the meat you moron. Which is far more likely to spread new diseases than fucking them.
Yeah, whatever makes you happy friend. Kinda doubt I'll be the one having issues though considering how stupid you sound.
James Thompson
There are no communicable STDs that can be transmitted between species. As of right now, it's literally safer to have sex with a dog than a human.
Matthew James
Holy shit just let this thread die already.
Xavier Davis
Well then I guess there's nothing I can see wrong with fucking animals. Unless any other user has a reason. You do you OP
Blake Ward
So this is what a bait thread looks like....not bad.
Matthew Ortiz
No.
Not everything you disagree with is bait.
Grayson Miller
And vice versa.
Michael Cooper
Yes
Nathan Perez
No, sadly these degenerates are completely serious.
Grayson Evans
The only bait are those who disagree with sensible zoos. Because they always equate it to rape when ironically, legal for-profit processes are actually rape, and totally normie-approved. Like breeding, insemination, neutering, and medical reproductive/cloning research.
Austin Turner
wut?
Blake Flores
Dirty fucking zoophilia fag
Kevin Thomas
HE SAID, "THE ONLY BAIT ARE THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH SENSIBLE ZOOS. BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS EQUATE IT TO RAPE WHEN IRONICALLY, LEGAL FOR-PROFIT PROCESSES ARE ACTUALLY RAPE, AND TOTALLY NORMIE-APPROVED. LIKE BREEDING, INSEMINATION, NEUTERING, AND MEDICAL REPRODUCTIVE/CLONING RESEARCH."
well that's like illegalizing all sex because not all people are sensible. differentiating sex and rape is just as important with animals as it is with people
Jaxon Gomez
Same. Dane diq is 10/10.
Gabriel Martinez
i think they meant that the people who lobbied for and made the bestiality laws weren't sensible
Levi Hill
they're disgusting greedy old white men. Of course they're not sensible.
Caleb Cruz
I guess you guys are right. I just don't understand all the hate without any good reason behind it
What if your dog doesn't initiate sex with you? Do just fap in the same room as it?
Camden Cook
oh don't get me wrong, i really love dogs and couldn't live without them but there's just something incredibly attractive about a giant sexy siberian tiger
If not I just ask the next one. Usually one does. If not, then I just wait for the next day but that's pretty rare since they like being eaten out and fucked.
I just can't get into their short faces. I like the longer snouts of dogs.
meh they're probably fine, just talked to him like 2 days ago
William Stewart
Bump
Levi Butler
ok, i just noticed the mods seems to have less patience for ferals lately.. when these threads are too quiet i always worry that it's because the regulars are getting banned but maybe i'm just paranoid
are the mods really that anti-zoo? I haven't noticed. usually it seems as long as you don't post irl zoo porn you're fine
Ryder Jenkins
Most people can't own pets at ALL without violating 4 and 5.
Nathan Wright
Which is why they only really apply to sex, really. I'd imagine training a dog to learn tricks wouldn't necessarily be as traumatic an experience as making it perform sex acts. Even if coercing a dog to perform sex acts wouldn't necessarily result in any trauma, the rules are still set in place as a fail-safe to ensure that the sexual interactions are as non-traumatic and natural as possible.
Anthony Anderson
I'm sure he's fine. Sometimes I'm on Cred Forums everyday of the week. Other times I get off for 2-3 weeks at a time. Probably just busy.
Each and every single zoophile argument for intercourse with a beast is beyond irrational. It all requires a severe level of demented and deficient cognition, or faulty logic that relies on tenuous, fallacious connections.
It all illustrates their nonexistent capacity to distinguish between childlike intelligence and higher function. They either cannot comprehend the mountain of commonsense reasons for why what they do is a terrible indicator of their dark and sinister nature, or they make the dark and sinister more so by being willfully ignorant of it, sometimes even rationalizing complete nonsense in order to cope. The fact that they're taking advantage of something that lacks the proper means to say "no" or clearly and equivocally communicate intent and sense is beyond the pale.
And they do it with a smile. Monsters, every single one. None, not a single one of them are "okay". There is nothing fine about what they do. They just want to scratch an itch, at the expense of anything and everything else around them. That's it. That's what it boils down to. You can press them for hours, lean on them with absolute prejudice, exhaust every single point of discussion they offer. Unless they also suffer from mental illness, they crack and admit their true motivations.
Then comes all of the disease and health issues. Then the painfully obvious mental gymnastics that come with behavior. And then everything else.
Ethics is the reason I'd just raved against the degenerates. Ethics serve as the backbone of the critique. You throw out that objection with not a single clue as to how far of a reach it gives any of cards on my table.
Alexander Martin
>dude...there's like a thousand reasons why what you do is wrong >I don't have time to list any of them despite being able to write paragraphs of nothing at a time though Just say you think zoophilia is gross and move on next time.
Jackson Flores
What a fucking idiot lmao. "Disease" argument. Okay, then stop eating meat and animal byproducts.
I'd already explained 5 reasons why. You've conveniently decided to pretend that they don't exist.
Eating the flesh of a dead cow isn't the same as fornicating with a living cow. You are already demonstrating that you're going to try and worm away from the issues presented, using the tried and true method of bad argumentation.
Lincoln Morgan
You're actually far more likely to get sick from eating undercooked meat, as they do in third world countries, than you ever would fucking one.
Companion animals in first world countries are disease free if kept in proper condition. Meat production animals are a different story.
You don't like it because you are grossed out, or religulous, or "muh consent" after you castrate your puppy near birth, or some other half-baked argument. Nothing logical. Next.
>I'd already explained 5 reasons why. You've conveniently decided to pretend that they don't exist. Your reasoning boils down to the following: - You're just demented. - Dogs are like kids. - Diseases. The rest of the passage consists of fluff statements like, "They either cannot comprehend the mountain of commonsense reasons for why what they do is a terrible indicator of their dark and sinister nature, or they make the dark and sinister more so by being willfully ignorant of it, sometimes even rationalizing complete nonsense in order to cope," statements just vague enough to insist there are a plethora of things wrong with bestiality without actually listing anything. As for the supposedly valid 'points' you raised, dogs are not children. That's a fallacious argument. Sexual interactions between adults and children are almost always harmful to the child regardless of the child's supposed expression of consent due to the fact that children are not finished developing physically nor psychologically. So there goes that argument. The likelihood that an animal or person would catch or pass a disease through sexual contact is highly unlikely; less likely than a disease which spreads within the barriers of species (because that how most diseases function). And the claim of all zoophiles being sick, evil and demented is entirely baseless. Sexuality is subjective, people are allowed to be attracted to beings you're not particularly attracted to. To make a long, long post short; you're blowing a shitload of hot air.
you're an utter retard for thinking pets don't get diseases, go fucking kill yourself or at least don't get pets
Connor Hernandez
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis if you think there is a magical way why mucous to mucous membrane doesn't transfer diseases across species, you're utterly butt fuck retarded but that's okay, most americans are and even if you're not one, that makes it okay in my eyes.
check the Zoonosis link to see what happens if two different strains of different species affecting virus recombine
or check out plasmides for bacteria
and then perhaps have a look at why the corona virus is so special about breaking species barriers and how many other well known diseases there are that humans can give animals, specifically pets and vice versa and how common it is
don't get a pet if you don't care enough for this shit
David Powell
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis if you think there is a magical way why mucous to mucous membrane doesn't transfer diseases across species, you're utterly butt fuck retarded but that's okay, most americans are and even if you're not one, that makes it okay in my eyes. Brucellosis spreads through the consumption of unpasturized milk and undercooked meat derived from infected animals. Q fever is airborne, not solely transmitted sexually. It can also be transmitted through contact with saliva, urine or feces of infected animals. Etc, etc etc. The problem with this argument is that zoonoses spread through entirely non-sexual interaction with animals, and are never asymptomatic. They are obvious diseases that you'd know an animal has before you get them, and that you'd know you have if you got them. Solution: Don't be a retard. Take your pets to the vet, go to the doctor, take the appropriate vaccinations and that's about it. The majority of these diseases are contracted from the consumption of animals raised in suboptimal living situations, not sexual intercourse, though they can spread through sexual intercourse. But you'd have to blatantly ignore all the blaringly obvious symptoms and continue fucking the animal to do that. Don't do that. Conduct hygienically and all will be fine. >All hail god emperor trump. What a shock, this post was written by a Trump supporter.
also most out of any set of possible diseases is a really shit qualifier or quantifier to say anything of meaning because it wouldn't matter if it's 99999999 gazilliontrilliontrumpisgoderemperatorepsteindidntkillhimselfilions if there's still dozens or thousands extremely common ones
don't be a retard just because school skipped out on you
>just because I like to say that I'm not a supporter of that fucking caricature of everything that is american "All hail god emperor trump," isn't a declaration of your support for Trump. OK. >fuck you and your country k >and great job for trying that as ad hominem, man just go kill yourself Thanks
with the amount of vegan dog fuckers that's unlikely
Jose Brooks
right, calling putin god emperor and others isn't either, perhaps if you try to wrap your head around it you understand what caricatures are about and why many evil people were compared to emperors and the god emperor is a massive cunt, but might be lost on you if you don't care much for warhammer
Luis Gutierrez
The argument is not that you will not get sick from eating undercooked meat, or that you are less likely to get sick from eating undercooked meat, nor is it at all about eating meat. It's not about eating meat. And it doesn't mean that you won't get a disease from having sex with one. There are many reasons why trying to fornicate with a non-human animal will give you disease- and not all of them are strictly STDs. Consider Lyme disease.
>Companion animals in first world countries are disease free if kept in proper condition And surely you understand that the cleanliness of the animal in question isn't the foundation for the argument at hand. I have had this argument with many, many, many, many zoophiles. All the way from the dull, to the seemingly erudite.
Argue with me properly. No one is going out of their way to visit an industrial animal farm to itch their sick little scratch. Look at the thread. Look at the image you just posted.
>You don't like it because I have a mountain of reasons besides the ones you insist on. I am revolted, but for more than that of smelling rotten garbage. I am not religious. I most definitely have a solid case for "muh consent", and it already shows in the way you fecklessly dismissed it. You can see clearly that it's what I'm most adamant about, because I've called the degenerates, degenerates. I've even not-so-subtly said that it was about their pleasure, and theirs alone. And what's that about castration? It doesn't then mean it's alright to go and plow your dog afterwards. What kind of rationale is that? That, is what's half-baked.
Luis Ross
To be fair, vegans hate zoophiles more than anyone. Vegans and like 70% of the furry community.
Carson Thomas
Calm down. I misunderstood the intention of your statement, that's all. You don't need to project so much anger. In my defense, there are tons of people who say the whole "God Emperor Trump" slogan without a hint of irony.
Alexander Watson
>statements just vague enough to insist there are a plethora of things wrong with bestiality without actually listing anything It's intended to invite the discussion of the broad brush that's painted on beastialists. It should be obvious to someone like you, that no 2 people are going to exist under the same conditions. If I go to attack every single thing, I could be wasting my time. I want the most pressing objections to be made clear from those who feel the need to alert me of their relevancy. It's then that I'll unpack the broad strokes. But you can't say that I've said nothing. Within the post are 2 more sentences that supplement the one you've singled out, and they paint a more comprehensive picture when read together. The structure of my post isn't even that ambiguous, so it should be relatively hard to miss the moralizing veneer glazing it.
>dogs are not children >Sexual interactions between adults and children are almost always harmful to the child regardless of the child's supposed expression of consent due to the fact that children are not finished developing physically nor psychologically Can we go into depth about the levels of psychological development? Nevermind that I'd said nothing about dogs being like children in the physical sense, because that's absurd. You say here, that acts of sex from adults are almost always harmful to the child, regardless of the child's supposed expression of consent, due to, at least, psychological variables, such as underdevelopment. Can we discuss just what that level of development entails? Do you remember when I'd said that zoophiles tend to make really terrible rationalizations?
I've done this a million times. It's becoming an art at this point, and I'm saying this things with more frankness than spite.
Nathaniel Collins
my experience and news about it from europe paint a different picture
might be because greenpeace is less big here
there's a lot vegan treehuggers among them, enough of them have their own twitter accounts, might be that some major movement of vegan cunts hates them but i didn't notice it where i live
William Wilson
>The likelihood that an animal or person would catch or pass a disease through sexual contact is highly unlikely
Jonathan Campbell
Dude... what is more likely. That someone will somehow manage to fuck a wild animal that can rip them limb from limb, like an ape? Or that some nigger doesn't know how to cook meat properly in nigger africa?
Why are you arguing against sex for diseases? Shouldn't you argue against eating meat, eggs, and milk?
>what is more likely That you would invite another comparison that has nothing to do with pet owners who own domesticated animals but also have a predisposition to sexually admire them.
>Shouldn't you argue against eating meat, eggs, and milk No, because that's not what I'm arguing against. I eat meat, eggs, and milk. I have no issue with that, and it's clearly a tangent meant to distract from the topic of having sex with non-human animals. I have to say it again.
I've done this a million times.
Gabriel Harris
Ok I'll try and yeah I've seen that too but we shouldn't let assholes take everything fun from us just because other assholes see it as a clear stripe dog whistle.
Also I'm not against pedophilia, I'm just a shit posting nova today and think it's important for people to know that there are many diseases that cross species boundaries regularly across many different species and that they're well known and if there's a human specific that affects pets it's usually listed on wikipedia and other places.
I really don't care much for people fucking their pets if it's consensual but there are dangers, flu for example is one virus that regularly crosses from human to dog and vice versa, despite both strains being relatively species specific.
also all plagues came from animals and there is a reason plagues only sprung into existence in the "old world" and there isn't a single point of origin elsewhere for them, which has a lot to do with the differences in how close animals and people lived together in urban centers compared to more rural cultures in the rest of the world
Wyatt Rogers
If you eat them then you are far more likely to spread new diseases than someone who has sex with them but doesn't eat them. That's my point.
OKAY. So how do we stop kids from fucking their dogs? That seems to be the REAL issue here. Even if we all agree you shouldn't bang your dog, how would we actually enforce that? Both the girls I've met in real life that did stuff with their dog, both said it happened to them around the age of puberty on accident,,when they were bored and horny and let their dogs lick them. They both said almost the same identical story; it stared with licking and hand jobs, and then eventually the dog would always be so horny around them he'd constantly be humping their leg. Eventually one thing led to another and all the right pieces where set into place where one day they'd be coming out of the shower naked, or changing their clothes, and bend down in just the right time and the dog surprises them and just jumps on their back and goes to town, penetrates and everything. 13 year olds are really, really dumb, you do dumb stupid stuff as a kid which you regret later. So both of them said they would start doing it on purpose with their dog and did so for a few years until they fully wrapped their head around what was happening. But when your REALLY think about the implications of this, how would you REALLY go about making sure this doesn't happen. First of all this whole concept is so weird and fucked up you can't even really go around telling parents warnings, like think about it, that's not practical at all. Just imagine being like "by the way, if you have a male dog in your house and have a young teenage daughter, it'll probably try to fuck her at some point, just a heads up lol", like that's just not realistic thing to tell people. So the question is, what should we do?
If you have a dog and not enjoy a sexual relationship with them, you’re not doing it right. A true bond deserves close intimacy.
Ayden Jenkins
>If you eat them then you are far more likely to spread new diseases than someone who has sex with them but doesn't eat them Does that mean that you'll never catch a disease from having sex with them? No. Does that address the argument over intention and conscionable acts when it comes to sex with them? No. Does that dismiss the claims of differing brain function with regards to the perpetrators? No. Do people eat their pets on the regular? Doubtful. That goes under the "no 2 people exist under the same conditions" umbrella, but you can be reasonably sure that the majority of posters who practice bestiality in this thread don't consume the flesh of their pets. Am I reading something that may or may not be patched together with sheets of hypocrisy?
Potentially. If you're going to die on this hill this early in the game, then that tells me that your only objection has to do with a tangentially related topic that doesn't at all address the main objections presented to you. It was never argued that eating meat doesn't spread disease. It was never argued that the probability of disease spread was greater during the act of eating meat. None of these things were contested, and so none of them have cases made for them such that they suggest otherwise. This is a very weak argument.
It's about to become a strawman at this point.
Nathan Adams
Right but you are fixating on a very low probability occurrence and ignoring the massively higher probability one.
Sex is ok and healthy with adult sexually mature animals, assuming you didn't castrate them a month after birth of course.
>Right but you are fixating on a very low probability occurrence And that isn't the only fixation, nor does this mean that it isn't something that can be argued, nor does it mean that it isn't an issue, nor does it, again, dismiss the aforementioned from before.
>Sex is ok and healthy with adult sexually mature animals You need to be magnitudes more specific. No one got back to me on the childlike psychology and levels of development, so that's one thing. Another is that you've said >sexually mature animals which means that you're only aiming for animals, and clearly not specifically humans, that are sexually developed. That's another way of saying that they just need the body for it to be right. The mind doesn't matter here. I remember fondly saying that zoophiles tend to reveal their true motivations if you press hard enough. This is, again, another example. What's worse, is the fixation on castration, and the idea that a lack of castration makes it okay. Which is hard to follow, given the whole premise being argued on behalf of the non-zoophile, alongside some of the utterances from a few zoophiles in turn.
And remember, sexually mature most certainly means the development of their sex. So, you're suggesting that it's healthy and okay, as long as you can diddle the family dog.
Camden Harris
>Does that mean that you'll never catch a disease from having sex with them? No. Actually...yeah, kinda. Contracting these diseases through sexual contact is extremely rare. If you contract them at all, which you likely won't, it's not likely to be because of sexual interaction. A lot of zoonoses can be transmitted by literally being in the same room with an infected animal, no touching or consumption needed. And, again, these diseases hit like a freight train. An animal infected with these diseases isn't an animal you'd want to fuck, anyway. Not saying it's literally physically impossible to catch these diseases via sexual interaction, but it is highly, highly improbable. To a point of practical irrelevancy. >intention and conscionable acts You were arguing the disease aspect, not the consensual. Consent is also a moot point since it is absolutely possible to have sex with an animal consensually. >Does that dismiss the claims of differing brain function with regards to the perpetrators? No. You have yet to provide anything but personal anecdotes with this, though. Nobody has to disprove your statements until you've first "proven" them. Saying, "The zoophiles I've met so far are all retarded," doesn't count. >Do people eat their pets on the regular? Doubtful. What does that have to do with anything? People eat animals and animal byproducts all the time, way more than they fuck their pets. The difference is that you can tell when your pet has a rare zoonotic disease vs when you're about to consume infected milk, or at least you should be able to if you're performing regular checkups.
>by the way, if you have a male dog in your house and have a young teenage daughter, it'll probably try to fuck her at some point, just a heads up lol God I wish someone had told me that. Would have saved me walking in on daughter getting her pussy licked out only to find out that it is not uncommon to occur (after discussing with wife).
Bentley Ramirez
You're fucking retarded.
Christian Taylor
Set camera on.
Daniel Powell
>>Does that mean that you'll never catch a disease from having sex with them >Actually...yeah, kinda Remember, you said this. >Contracting these diseases through sexual contact is extremely rare >extremely rare >rare >rare >never catch >rare Remember. You said this.
>Contracting these diseases through sexual contact is extremely rare >If you contract them at all >it's not likely to be because of sexual interaction >sexually transmitted diseases >not being transmitted through sexual contact in an environment where sexual contact is at least 100% more frequent than a control environment where no bestiality is happening >never catch Remember.
>A lot of zoonoses can be transmitted by literally being in the same room with an infected animal >Contracting these diseases through sexual contact is extremely rare >these diseases hit like a freight train >Actually...yeah, kinda You said this.
>Not saying it's literally physically impossible to catch these diseases via sexual interaction, >Actually...yeah, kinda Then you're arguing what hasn't been argued. It's rare to catch the diseases. This doesn't mean you won't >literally physically not catch them. This rationale is not enough to justify the remainder of the activities. Not if you have to double back every time you try to affirm what you must know is absurd to affirm. Why say that it's maybe kind of almost really the case? Is that supposed to be convincing?
>You were arguing the disease aspect, not the consensual Oh, my bad. >It all illustrates their nonexistent capacity to distinguish between childlike intelligence and higher function This sentence is about AIDS.
Nathan Jenkins
>Consent is also a moot point since it is absolutely possible to have sex with an animal consensually If it's a moot point, then why is it okay? And why has no one bothered to follow up on the whole issue revolving around accusing a dog of having the intelligence of an underdeveloped human being, as children were previously described? And, consent? Something about sexually mature animals.
>You have yet to provide anything but personal anecdotes with this I could just point to individuals on the internet, whom you could easily find and analyze for yourself. May I remind you, that there's overlap in the furry community, when it comes to zoophiles. It's a no-brainer. Not only are there documented cases at this point, but if you claim to have spent any amount of time on the internet, it shouldn't be such a far cry to acknowledge that, out of 1000 people who subscribe to a non-normative ideology, a non-negligible amount of them aren't "normal". Pedophilia tends to also have overlap with zoophiles, more often than not. I don't think I have to explain to you why, because you should already have that implicit sense of this discussion over taboo.
>The zoophiles I've met so far are all retarded Well, not all of them were. But just like anyone else, a majority of them tended to write themselves into a corner. I'm not lying when I tell you that I've likely experienced the grand sum of typical responses any zoophile is likely to give, when put in the hot seat. I have just about seen all of the arguments. All of the easy arguments, all of the bad arguments, all of the good arguments. There must be some that I haven't seen, and can't argue, but even you must understand how unreasonable it is to say that this applies to every single zoophile, let alone the majority. It attracts a certain kind of person, anyways, so their lines of thinking lead to a lot of comorbidity.
Austin Brooks
>What does that have to do with anything It was being argued that eating the meat of animals is what gives you the sick. And it's being argued that zoophiles are bad because they sex their pets. If this has anything to do with zoophiles that don't eat meat, it can only apply if they are then eating their pets. Otherwise, mentioning how bad meat is to eat, and how much it can give you disease, is irrelevant. >People eat animals and animal byproducts all the time Aha, but what about those fabled zoophiles that don't? Someone's just told me some don't. And if everyone is doing the hyperbole you suggest, then everyone should have the sick. And they don't. There must be more to it than that.
>The difference is that you can tell when your pet has a rare zoonotic disease >at least you should be able to if you're performing regular checkups If you sex your dog, and then take it to the vet immediately after, what do you think happens? Are there any zoophiles who would like to explain the logistics involved here?
Dogs are really good at sucking dick I've heard, especially sideways! The teeth only make the penis grow more!
Michael Hernandez
It's unnecessary to remind me of what I said because nothing I've said so far conflicts anything else I've said. >Then you're arguing what hasn't been argued. It's rare to catch the diseases. This doesn't mean you won't Wrong; it doesn't mean you can't. It means you likely won't. That's what 'rare' means.
>If it's a moot point, then why is it okay? Animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive/pleasurable purposes, and they can be sexually attracted to humans, so they can consent to sexual interactions with humans in that regard. The idea that animal's can't consent is in itself moot, consent isn't itself a moot point. My apologies for phrasing that incorrectly; I retract that statement and replace it with this one. >And why has no one bothered to follow up on the whole issue revolving around accusing a dog of having the intelligence of an underdeveloped human being, as children were previously described? The difference between the two situations is too big. Sex with children is damaging because they continue to develop after the abuse has taken place and the interaction typically damages the child. This doesn't apply to dogs, because although they may possess similar levels of intelligence to a 3-year-old, they don't progress beyond that point and sexual interactions with them (assuming those interactions are carried out under the guidelines laid out in the OP) doesn't damage them emotionally or psychologically, at all. Bestiality can actually be a positive experience for all parties involved. >I could just point to individuals on the internet, >May I remind you, that there's overlap in the furry community, when it comes to zoophiles. It's a no-brainer...Pedophilia tends to also have overlap with zoophiles, more often than not. I don't think I have to explain to you why, because you should already have that implicit sense of this discussion over taboo. ...Is that really what you consider sufficient evidence? Personal observation?
Jacob Foster
>If this has anything to do with zoophiles that don't eat meat, it can only apply if they are then eating their pets. Otherwise, mentioning how bad meat is to eat, and how much it can give you disease, is irrelevant. It's actually not irrelevant, though, because it doesn't make sense to bring up the likelihood of contracting or transmitting zoonoses via intercourse if those same diseases are being spread in far more common, unrelated ways in the first place. >Aha, but what about those fabled zoophiles that don't? They're not fabled, there are a lot of zoophiles that are also vegan, despite the fact that the vegan community despises zoophilia. >Someone's just told me some don't. And if everyone is doing the hyperbole you suggest, then everyone should have the sick. And they don't. There must be more to it than that. ...?
Kevin Jones
Not sure about that, but a dog's vaginal suction will definitely increase your dick size over the course of a year or two.
>It's unnecessary to remind me of what I said because nothing I've said so far conflicts anything else I've said There are direct contradictions in the things you have said. I've placed them directly next to one another, for the sake of visually illustrating the juxtapositions. >Wrong >it doesn't mean you can't So don't argue that it actually kinda yeah does mean that it can't. Look.
>>Does that mean that you'll never catch a disease from having sex with them? No. >Actually...yeah, kinda. What does that sentence mean to you? Does this mean a thing? No. But actually, yeah, kind of, because...
Oh, sorry. It doesn't mean you can't.
Even though the sentences say, unmistakably >It's rare to catch the diseases >This doesn't mean you won't What does the phrase, "doesn't mean you won't", mean to you? Does it mean, "does mean you will"? Because that's not what it means. I have no clue what you're saying doesn't mean "can't". I have no idea why you would even be mentioning that, when it's already been established. Yes, that's what rare means. It's rare to catch the diseases. >It's rare to catch the diseases This doesn't mean you won't. >This doesn't mean you won't
Or, do you disagree?
>Animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive/pleasurable purposes That isn't sufficient enough reasoning for boning non-human animals. The issue here is consent, and agency. I may enjoy the act of making physical human contact, but that isn't justification for someone to come out of the blue and molest me. You have agency in that example. Do you have consent? >They can be sexually attracted to humans That also isn't sufficient enough reasoning for boning non-human animals. The issue here is consent, and agency.
Austin Hughes
>The difference between the two situations is too big Let me get this straight. You've trying to give reasons for why boning the animal is a-okay. But you have now just said that the difference between the 2 situations is too big. I repeat. The difference between the 2 situations is too big. The situations are non-human animals having the intelligence on par with, or even below, an underdeveloped human. The difference is between a child and a dog. And that difference, is too big.
Oh? Animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive/pleasurable purposes, but the difference between the 2 situations is too big?
>Sex with children is damaging because they continue to develop after the abuse has taken place and the interaction typically damages the child Sex with children is damaging, because they continue to develop after the abuse has taken place, and the interaction typically damages the child. No mention of what damage, or how.
But for some reason this doesn't apply to dogs. Why? Because, although they may possess similar levels of intelligence to a 3-year old >although they may possess similar levels of intelligence to a 3-year old >they may possess similar levels of intelligence to a 3-year old >dogs >3-year old >similar levels of intelligence to a 3-year old they don't progress beyond that point >they don't progress beyond that point >they don't progress >beyond that point >Animals can and do have sex for non-reproductive/pleasurable purposes and sexual interactions with them >assuming those interactions are carried out under the guidelines laid out in the OP doesn't damage them emotionally or psychologically, at all. Even though they possess similar levels of intelligence to that of a 3-year old, and don't progress from there, and there was no mention of sexual development. So, strictly speaking, there's no mental damage to a dog. But there is damage done to a 3-year old, because they continue to develop after the abuse has taken place.
Luke Davis
Do you understand what you've just said? 3-year olds develop. They develop. And dogs don't. Can you now equate the capacity of an adult human, to a dog? Can you, really? Is it possible, given the following? How, then, can bestiality be positive experience for all parties involved- when dogs possess the intelligence of a 3-year old?
Is this not an argument for diddling toddlers?
Honestly.
>...Is that really what you consider sufficient evidence Evidence that's tangible? Yes. I could do a deep dive into actual studies, and I could just ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746949/ like this, and drop more, and discuss the resulting story the data tells, and demonstrate how that lends itself to the story that begins to form as you do a deep dive into real, living people, but you know no one has time for that.
>because it doesn't make sense to bring up the likelihood of contracting or transmitting zoonoses via intercourse if those same diseases are being spread in far more common If you bring up STDs, you don't have to talk about the common cold. That's unreasonable at best, fallacious reasoning at worst. >They're not fabled Thank you for confirming that it was hyperbole, then. There are a lot of zoophiles that are vegan. So what business do they have being the topic of discussion, when the discussion concerns itself with those who are at risk for catching a disease via eating meat? They're not eating meat. They're having sex with their pets. The only way they're going to come in contact with disease, is through their pets. And since they're not eating their pets... do you see where this is going?
Or are you doing to hopelessly dance around it again? You've just helped to strengthen the point. And you pretend that the accusation of hyperbole doesn't make sense to you in the same stroke. You are doing what many zoophiles tend to do.
I don't think I need to tell you what it is, because that question mark speaks for itself.
And if you pick up on the double-negative, it would further demonstrate that you're capable of distinguishing between all kinds of grammar, and so you'd have even less reason to suggest that don't = can't, or feign ignorance.
Easton Howard
It's a slippery slope when we stopped seeing homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Replace ‘human’ with ‘adult’ and ‘dog’ with ‘child’ and you should then see where you went wrong OP. Also you are a faggot.
Jose Harris
You don't respect the animal by having sex with it. A pet is already in a disproportionate relationship with its owner. To further subject it to your disproportionate capacity and reach, is as far as away from respect as you can get.
>But somehow sex is abuse Yes, sex is abuse. It was outlined why it would be abuse. But you just want to plug your ears, and plug your dog. The hallmarks of an individual who respects living things.
What is your obsession with using castration to justify having sex with dogs. Why would you suggest that one other act, makes the other act okay. Why, why, why, I wonder.
Lucas Howard
>and plug your dog. Are you trying to be cute? Because that was cute.
Blake Morales
Kill yourself
Wyatt Reyes
Throw a bunch of dogs into a school and they’ll shit everywhere. Literally different species? Your point is? Stop raping your dog.
Anthony Flores
If you were my neighbour I’d shoot you in the fucking head, and put those fucking dogs out of their misery too.
I really hope you get murdered.
Justin Williams
is it rape when he plunges his throbbing cock into my asshole and spends the next 20 minutes filling me with cum
Noah Collins
>diddling toddlers So now you're saying that's bad?
>You don't respect the animal by having sex with it. Granting your pet an orgasm with its consent is more respectful than modifying its body so you don't have to put up with its horny bullshit.
Joshua Lewis
Yes
Samuel Butler
Then I have your attention. You just want to have sex with dogs.
And both things are magnitudes less respectful than not having sex with your dog.
Noah Wright
>And both things are magnitudes less respectful than not having sex with your dog. How?
Wyatt Perez
>A pet is already in a disproportionate relationship with its owner >To further subject it to your disproportionate capacity and reach >is as far as away from respect as you can get
Jack Green
And the word choice... "granting". You grant your pet things? Really?
It's at your mercy, is it?
Luke Adams
but as long as you proceed with the consideration of the animal's consent, comfort, safety and pleasure, the rest of that is sort of null
Oliver Thomas
So why is castration ok, cannibalism is ok, breeding for profit is fine, but not sex?
Which means they're not kids.
If you were my neighbor I would curb stomp your fucking teeth in
Explain how it becomes null. Also scroll up before you repeat something that was already said. Quite a bit was said.
Austin Cooper
>You grant your pet things? Really? Yeah? You can grant your pet a treat, grant your pet a toy, grant your pet an orgasm. Just as you can grant a human an orgasm, too. It doesn't mean they can't have one without you, it just means that you're gifting them something. >It's at your mercy, is it? Yes. But that doesn't mean that sex with your pet in automatically rape.
Alexander Perry
>I would curb stomp your teeth in I seriously doubt you’re bulletproof fag
Brody Perez
because if you proceed under considerate parameters, the dog's intentions matter as much as yours, which balances out the power imbalance. if a dog wants to fuck you, and you let the dog fuck you, it's fine. you make the dog fuck you and it's rape. pretty simple
Noah Morris
Normalizing degeneracy everyone although sensible
Jaxson Baker
God I love getting knotted (◍•ᴗ•◍)( ꈍᴗꈍ)
Caleb Ward
Nothing is sensible about degeneracy, that why it's labeled degeneracy.
>So why is castration ok Population control, behavior modification, and so on and so forth. It's done for a reason. There's no argument that it isn't bad, or it isn't mutilation. The word itself conveys that notion. But it's not this thing that the populace cheers, and finds absolutely no qualms with. It's done because dogs aren't capable of deciding not to have offspring. There are many, many variables that can complicate the entire situation of domesticated animals in neighborhoods experiencing a population explosion. You'd look down on strays being euthanized in kennels, right?
Do you know what would happen if no one castrated their pets? There would be more dogs to euthanize, for starters.
But I sure hope you're not equating castration to cannibalism. And I'm sure you're not ignorant of the breeding situation when it comes to domesticated animals and the consumer market. That one is pretty on the nose. And it's been explained at length why the act of sex on a dog, from a human, would be bad. Specifically in the context of a zoophile committing the act. You can't just ignore that. It'd be fairly hypocritical, given that you want to invoke examples of cannibalism, castration, and more.
The idea of why these things are bad, is very cut and dry. So are the reasons for which they usually happen.
Caleb Allen
>Just as you can grant a human an orgasm And the operative word is consent. Keep in mind that dogs are truly as functional as toddlers. You're giving something that can reason as far as a 3-year old, an orgasm. This thing doesn't even posses the ability to leave you. It depends on you- funnily enough, like a toddler would. Without any input or guidance, it will eat anything it finds, shit anywhere it goes, and probably not know where to find edible food. It may even eat something hazardous to its health, or get trapped behind furniture, and more. It's also predominately driven by instinct, because the defining characteristic of a human baby is the fact that they have to grow several sized before they are a fully functional adult. Dogs do not need to do this. Many behaviors for them are instinctual, and present from birth. Human babies are mostly blank slates and brain stem.
What you should hang on, is the fact that the majority of behavior from dogs is instinctual. That means they don't usually choose, they're just compelled. Chasing one's tail is just a tic. What does that say about consent between a non-human animal, and a human being?
I can't imagine it's the same level of consent, if it's consent at all. The dog cannot communicate, unambiguously, that you're raping it. It either tolerates the act, or bark and growl and bite. And it will do those things for a number of reasons, sometimes for no good reason at all. There's no level of complexity in a bark, that there is in any anatomically modern human's language. There are so many reasons why the argument of consent does not add up.
Luke Ross
>the dog's intentions matter as much as yours The dog can't negotiate itself out of the relationship, the human is in full control of that. Why? Because the human being has to be the one to interpret everything. It has the power in the relationship. Too much power. And dogs are not sufficiently complex enough, in terms of cognition, to inform and be informed about consent. This means an unambiguous communication of what is going to happen. If you want someone to shove that delicious looking slice of pie into your mouth, but I shove dry cornmeal into your mouth, you'll complain. You wanted food, but you didn't want that food. The level of information wasn't communicated. You didn't want someone to shove dry cornmeal into your mouth, even though technically, someone shoved food into your mouth. Dogs don't do this. There's no beforehand discussion of what they want to happen. It's a response. It's very base, primal, rudimentary.
Try asking a dog to sign a legal document. It won't understand. And it will probably bite you if you forcibly try to get it to hold a pen as a result. But it wants treats. And if the treat happens to be thrown directly at the dog, it will probably react poorly, but then eat the treat. That's the level of sophistication you're working with. Dogs do not understand the meaning of consent that human beings employ with one another. It's on a different level. It's informed. And that is why we have this concept, called rape.
You're raping your dog.
Grayson Parker
Kill yourself. >saged
Cameron Howard
I like to sperminate trees, makes me feel down ta erf,like da trees from da erf,im from da erf,if a tree has da hole it in i cans fuck it and sperminate the erf and grow babie trees
Juan Hughes
Sage isn't a downvote, you know. You're only helping the thread last longer. Also, announcing sages is against the rules.
Leo Jenkins
You've essentially just argued that owning pets in itself is immoral.
Jaxson Bell
>You've essentially just argued that owning pets in itself is immoral It shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that, then.
Michael Davis
Triggered.
Evan Turner
By the logic you've presented, a dog's inability to consent isn't limited strictly to sex with humans. It's extended to all interactions with humans, including being owned by them.
Kevin Kelly
Yep. Being owned is, in fact, not up to the dog. But the dog, the dog won't even understand ownership. It will have no concept of this.
So you need to be more careful about interpreting the logic.
Cooper Edwards
>But the dog, the dog won't even understand ownership. It will have no concept of this. Just because the dog doesn't know it's happening doesn't mean it's not still wrong, no?
Camden Thomas
Yes, but I'd never said that the lack of knowledge made it okay. I only added onto what was missing. The logic I presented contained more than just the dog's inability to consent. The conclusion doesn't just arise because the dog can't consent. It arises for additional reasons, reasons that are far reaching enough to not only seem to make the case that pet ownership would be immoral...
But so would the act of a human having sex with dogs be immoral. Without question, because it's not only that the issues with consent are limited strictly to sex with humans. Mind you, the goal was to argue that zoophiles having sex with their dogs is no good. It might inevitably come to be that the argument also makes a case for pet ownership being immoral, but that both exemplifies the level at which the argument addresses sex with dogs, and the consequence of trying to argue that sex with dogs must be something. But without a doubt, I have seen some zoophiles claim that because the dog can't meaningfully deal with that aspect, it's a-okay. Such an instance happened in this very thread.
Something about a positive experience for all parties?