Hello! This is your daily reminder that it's perfectly acceptable to have sex with a non-human animal as long as: 1.) It's possible to have sex with the animal without causing physical or psychological harm or distress, and you proceed with the intention of avoiding and eliminating the infliction of harm and distress at all costs, taking precautions to do so. 2.) The animal initiates every interaction, and every interaction ends immediately upon the animal's slightest expression of displeasure or disinterest. (This counters the consensual imbalance of power between humans and animals.) 3.) You don't incorporate any sexual abnormalities not typically observed in the animal's sexual behavior (i.e. BDSM, scat, breath play, etc) 4.) You don't coerce the animal 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. 7.) The animal either belongs to you, no one, or an owner who is aware of and OK with your activities.
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!
I mean why does it bother you so much where random dudes put their dicks. And dogs are sexually mature adults. It's not homosex, or pedo, or necro whatever. It's its own different thing and you are basically a bigot from the future.
Zoophilia doesn't seem from failure to find people to have sex with, just as being gay doesn't mean you've failed with women. It just means you're attracted to men.
Isaac Cooper
Thank you for bumping, by the way
Sebastian Hughes
Tell us the whole story and include how the fuck did you even get the idea to let a dog fuck you
Hello! This is your daily reminder that people that want to fuck or be fucked by animals are disgusting.
Kill yourself.
Nathaniel Young
yea actually interested
Daniel Reyes
Not him/her but I'd imagine it's not a hard idea to conjure. The dog is trying to fuck you and instead of fighting it, you just...give it to him. Either that or s/he was always attracted to dogs and there was never an 'idea.'
>be 14/M >gay furry virgin >eventually get into bestiality porn >like it a lot >end up wanting to try it >had a big German shepherd like pic related >he was neutered >decided to try sex with him since we were just two pent up horny boys >work up the courage to suck his cock one night when parents are asleep >pull back his sheath >he likes it >his cock starts squirting and growing almost instantly >pop it in my mouth >its slimy and tasted fucking awful >gag a spit it out >cant get the taste out of my mouth >say "fuck it" and just go for it >go from innocent vidya playing nerd to dogslut in a heartbeat >slurp and gag on 8 inches of dirty german shepherd cock >did that almost nightly for a few weeks until I decided I wanted him to breed me >took some practice but eventually got him to mount properly >was training him one night not expecting to get fucked >let him mount and hump me like we usually practice >feel his wet pointed cock poking around my balls and asscrack >suddenly and without warning I feel the tip hit me dead center right in my little boy hole >before I can process what's happening hes already balls deep and slamming hard enough to make my chubby white ass cheeks jiggle >recieve an ass fucking so hard it makes my eyes water > all i can do is dig my fingers into the grass and bite my lip >i can feel his cock swelling up and growing inside of me as he pumps my virgin butthole like it was a fresh dog pussy >so tight he couldnt knot the first time >he just stayed motionless on my back with his cock in planted in me >since we weren't knotted he slipped out eventually >dog cum everywhere >intense pain as my poor asshole tried to recover >my bootyhole went from virgin to gaped in one night
I would still like to try datin a human but sharing a sexual bond with a german shepherd was a very unique experience that I'll never forget so I guess I cant complain
That's not me and literally everyone is sick in the head somehow. The problem is whether or not their actions are harmful, and in this case, they're not. As long as the animal is happy, healthy, safe and willing, there's not much room for moral objection
Michael Wright
I c I c still seek help
Alexander Lee
Are you...are you knottypaws?
Ryan Parker
Mate there is no such thing as a consenting animal (hUmAnS aRe AnImAlS... shut up)
they cannot consent, please SEEK H E L P
Adam Ortiz
>still seek help That's not going to do anything. Sexuality can't be influenced by therapy. The only thing a psychiatrist is going to do is give you techniques on how to ignore and suppress your urges, not rod yourself of them. That's what they do with pedophiles all the time. And even then, suppressing your urges is unnecessary unless they lead to harmful actions. If you're not hurting anyone, what's the issue?
Owen Harris
The next step is look at yourself in the fucking mirror then
why are you fucking animals what is wrong with you
Jeremiah Harris
They absolutely can consent, though. They can't communicate verbally, but that's not entirely necessary as they can communicate effectively their own methods. They can consent.
Brody Taylor
Can you make your desires public if you are so confident about it so l can track you down and mutilate you l will satisfy my desire for blood while not causing too much trouble to society
Thanks, armchair psych. >why are you fucking animals Cuz they sexy af >what is wrong with you lots of shit but this ain't one of em
Alexander Sanchez
"If someone is deemed incapable of providing consent, it's not possible to obtain consent – it's as simple as that. ... Play and cooperation among animals are examples of how animals can express consent with one another, but we don't speak the languages of other animals, and they typically don't speak ours"
no, no they can't please stop fucking animals
yes it might "feel good" for you and them
but fucking THINK about what your doing
YOU ARE FUCKING A D O G MATE
Evan Sanders
>Cuz they sexy af i take it back
you don't need help
you need to be put in a fucking LOONY BIN FOR THINKING A DOG CAN LOOK SEXY
Easton Robinson
Animals communicate via a series of gestures and bodily cues that are extremely obvious and unmistakable. It's not like they're speaking some dead, indecipherable language that people can't understand. When your dog is happy, sad, hungry, excited, angry or feeling playful, you'll know. Horniness is just another one of those emotions that they display without reservation. It's no different.
Joseph Smith
>what are opinions Newsflash, some people can like things others don't care for.
Mason Thompson
just imagine being a dog and having a good relationship with your roommate, then he just out of the fucking blue because he can't understand humans more then what they have associated words with like food and sit, and just randomly buttfucks you for no reason.
Ayden Brown
Nice to meet you! I love your videos. Did they have any consequences on your life at all? I saw some posts on dubchan before it rebranded but it's impossible to know if they were actually you
Jace Ramirez
*because you
Luis Stewart
Newsflash. You're a degenerate.
Xavier Russell
anyway, now that we got the formalities out the way, anyone got a dog to rail me?
Dogs don't enjoy anal, so that's not a good scenario because it breaks rule 1 and 2. A more accurate scenario would be, "Imagine if you tried to fuck your roommate and you roommate accepted your advances."
Justin Diaz
k
Chase Clark
*raises hand*
Lincoln Lee
> Animals fucking women is hot. > Animals fucking fags is gross but as long as it's the animal in dominant position, whatever. > Humans fucking animals, forcing them, making them take it in any way is fucked up.
Justin Brooks
You filthy dreg.
Adam Thompson
meh, if you fuck a female dog in heat it's fine. penetrating a male is unacceptable, though
Robert Campbell
your opinion of me concerns me not.
Michael Wright
It's a fact.
Christian Nguyen
>>he was neutered >he was neutered >was neutered >neutered >NEUTERED That means no balls, and no sex drive and no boner, so I call BS
Logan Parker
do you have kik :)
Hudson Williams
>Can you make your desires public I actually already have. A few people in my life know I'm zoo and don't care. A lot of them are actually really trusting. I walk and spend time with my friends' dogs all the time. But I wouldn't say these things on the internet without anonymity because of posts like these.
Thomas Peterson
You're not that anonymous.
Christian Gomez
not him but neutering doesn't have to always eliminate sex drive. neutering is mostly done to prevent accidental pregnancies, but doesn't always manifest behavioral changes at all.
Nolan Morales
I know, but still, I wouldn't, say, open a YouTube channel about this type of shit.
Cameron Clark
You rapey cretin.
Hudson Walker
Well if OP is fucking dogs at least he won't breed
Nope, that's the truth. I've never raped a dog. I've never raped anyone for that matter.
Levi Mitchell
Listen.
If I came home and my dog made dinner, opened a beer for me, and was laying twerking on me as I walked into the house.
That dog deserves it for figuring it out.
Camden Morales
your parents should be skinned alive for bringing such shame to this world
Samuel Hall
You're a cretinous little fiend that spends excessive amounts of time with dogs, and is friends with people who are "really trusting". A self-admitted zoophile who fears prosecution for their actions.
You dog-raping fuck.
Nolan Hall
>but we don't speak the languages of other animals
You realize that, for the sake of attempting to support your argument, you are willing to just about outright state that humans are too dumb to understand the incredibly basic communication methods that animals use.
Excuse me if I'm unable to put much stock in this, given the mountains of evidence (literally anyone who owns a pet) that, yes, discerning an animals motives and/or general emotional state is trivially easy. As far as the usual mammals are concerned, anyway.
>Excuse me if I'm unable to put much stock in this There is a mountain of argument for you that spits in the face of everything you just finished typing. You're not excused.
I spend excessive amounts of time with dogs because, I mean, who wouldn't? I don't engage with them sexually. I just walk them and play with them. I don't fuck other people's dogs. And who wouldn't fear being tracked down and skinned alive by some stranger from the internet?
Ayden Robinson
>There is a mountain of argument for you that spits in the face of everything you just finished typing
...which you couldn't even be bothered to summarize.
Guess it was just a troll, after all.
Evan Mitchell
>I don't engage with them sexually >A few people in my life know I'm zoo and don't care >But I wouldn't say these things on the internet without anonymity >I don't fuck other people's dogs >other people's dogs >A lot of them are actually really trusting You fuck.
>who wouldn't Someone who doesn't rape dogs.
Summarize? I'll give you the whole thing.
Christopher Williams
More?
Landon Clark
Literally all you did was highlight bits of my post and call me a fuck.
Jose Watson
Because you're a fuck, and you don't read what's inconvenient.
Joseph Evans
Why is my dick getting hard watching this gifs?
Tyler King
aw shit son, you sure showed him
Carter Nelson
Each and every rank and file zoophile argument for intercourse with a beast is irrational at its core. It all requires a severe level of demented 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 with it. 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. There are so many clauses and conditions and exceptions they have to routinely employ in order to justify, if to no one but themselves, that it is fine. This irony of a zoophile jumping through hoops shouldn't be lost on anyone. 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. 20 years of engaging all the filthy colors of the rainbow has confirmed this. 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 the behavior. And then everything else.
A favorite argument of zoophiles is that eating animals is wrong. Eating the flesh of a dead cow isn't the same as fornicating with a living cow. One involves a dead cow. The other, involves a living cow. One isn't capable of recognizng anything. One isn't even a whole animal anymore, just flesh. But the other? The other possesses a mental capacity roughly in step with a very young child. The other does not understand the concept that you are using to justify putting yourself inside of it. It cannot speak to you in a way that another human being can. It cannot communicate something to you that another human being can. It cannot understand the fundamentally human concepts that humans can. These abstractions are beyond essentially every animal out there. Few animals even use syntax to communicate, and even then, none of them have statutes and civilizations to worry about. The point is that things like informed consent, and the multi-layered rationale of "s/he loves me" would not apply anywhere but inside of your head. Regarding the discrepancy between eating meat and having your way with it? Use your brain. Animals are never capable of choosing to weigh morality in any case, so this argument of morality from most zoophiles falls apart. Tigers do not ask to maul another animal if they are hungry. They simply do. Now, you already have a situation where humans seem to be in a unique position of power. They are the moral decision makers. Not the animals.
Adrian Myers
As such, the situation becomes one where these lone moral decision makers default to being the only individuals who can make moral decisions- for those who can't. Animals do not possess the ability to regard one's own good, let alone know it. This gets dangerously close to suggesting that they don't possess the same rights that humans do. That plays directly into the axiom where animals have been argued into being slaves- primarily by zoophiles. A zoophile is responsible for having making that distinction, and whenever that argument is made in the wild, they accept it fully and deliberately fail to realize what issues might arise when they do. Morality does not just concern the ability to discern goodness, but suffering. Take from that what you will. Alas, deciding to kill an animal is not a protracted event. You decide to kill the animal, and then you kill the animal. That even glosses over the process in which most animals are killed. It's called culling. Cows aren't launched out of catapults to land painfully into the side of a building. They're culled. Euthanized. Let go. Not savagely murdered. And that act isn't one where you subjugate a living thing to something that is uniquely foreign and out of their purview, by all means.
But we should revisit the problem of morality. Let's clear something up. We're concerned with the welfare of the animal, right? If that's the case, and this is all over morality, then why not invoke welfare ethics? Let's talk about welfarism. Because the welfare of the animal is clearly the concern.
Ryder Powell
>Animal welfarism, as I use the term here, is a view or family of views about the scope of moral considerability; it sets forth a particular view of the sorts of entities that moral agents can have duties to and not merely regarding (i.e., it distinguishes direct from indirect objects of moral concern). Animal welfarists may disagree about the best way to characterize the criteria for moral considerability, but they all agree that some nonhuman animals are included (usually this includes at least most mammals; many animal welfarists also include birds, reptiles, and fish), and that all nonanimals (plants, mountains, rivers, ecosystems, species, etc.) are excluded. For this reason, despite the differences among them, animal welfarist positions as a group are usefully contrasted with biocentric or ecocentric theories, which hold that one or more of these latter types of entities should also be recognized as morally considerable. On my usage, deontological and consequentialist versions of animal welfarism share the view that all members of some class of animals are properly treated as direct objects of moral concern, but differ as theories about the rightness or wrongness of actions affecting the members of that class. stafforini.com/docs/Everett - Environmental ethics, animal welfarism, and the problem of predation.pdf
John Miller
Lol how did you know it was me? Also, thanks. I really wish I made more vids of us together, didnt know people actually enjoyed them. After the first vid I was scared of getting caught so I stopped, but years later nothing has happened so if I could go back in time knowing I wouldnt get caught I would have done way more. There were pretty much 0 consequences. I guess that's the perks of being a social shut in living in a big city. I can post a video of myself with my face in full view getting railed by a German shepherd and show it to the world without anyone recognizing me lol
Oh yeah, the posts there were me too. I was just LARPing for attention. I figured since when some dumbass gets caught the first thing everyone always says is "sauce, I want to see the vid" so I figured I could get more people to want to see it. Kinda stupid I guess.
Relax, it was a typo. He had his balls. I can show you a vid I took of us a couple years after we had been screwing pretty regularly....and yes I was 18 in the vid. We fucked all through highschool and a few years after up until his passing away.
In a nutshell, welfarism is an ethical theory that establishes the fact that it derrives its conclusions from the standards of the group. It relies on the idea that actions or rules should be judged or made according to the consequences they produce. It is the view, that significantly moral consequences impact human, or animal, welfare. The utility, the value that welfarism uses to measure this, can be thought of as health, happiness, or well-being. And it's not that this is the only way to convey the utility. There are many. But for the sake of simplicity, call it well-being. You want to maximize well-being, which is steeped in the moral, and the consequences of your acts and rules will directly affect the moral. You don't want to do something immoral, you don't want to do something that harms or violates the well-being of something.
>springer >Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters The introduction here sums up the thoughts of an author who has argued that some non-humana animals may in fact be moral creatures. Moral creatures, meaning they can "behave on the basis of moral motivations". In other words, well-being guides their behavior in a non-neglible way. >while animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behaviour, this only excludes them from the possibility of counting as moral agents Further explanation shows what the author suggests. "Animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behaviour". This prevents them from being moral agents. It doesn't, however, prevent them from being moral subjects. It doesn't prevent them from being at the mercy of morality >even if their lack of sophisticated cognitive capacities prevents us from holding them morally responsible
Think about that. The bull can't be held morally responsible for goring you, but that doesn't mean you can't violate it.
>The empirical evidence gathered until now suggests that Rowlands may be on the right track and that some animals are indeed capable of behaving morally. Some studies, for instance, have found that animals are sometimes willing to help others when there is no direct gain involved, or even a direct loss. There's some evidence to establish that animals could possess moral behavior. The fun is in knowing that many zoophiles will think this supports their side of the argument. >While we believe that all this evidence provides prima facie support for Rowlands’ position, in this paper our aim is not to engage in an empirical or conceptual assessment of the claim that animals can be moral subjects. Rather, we shall grant that moral subjecthood in animals is at least a theoretical possibility with some empirical plausibility. >Our focus, instead, is going to be on determining the ethical consequences that follow from considering that a certain animal is a moral subject. So hold your horses.
Here are some things to consider. >Rawls states that “equal justice is owed to those who have the capacity to take part in and to act in accordance with the public understanding of the initial situation” in which the principles of justice are chosen (Rawls 1971, 505) >This means that, in his view, “it is precisely the moral persons who are entitled to equal justice,” where moral persons are understood as those beings who are “capable of having […] a conception of their good,” as well as “a sense of justice” >While any theory that requires individuals to be moral in order to matter morally can be questioned >the fact remains that characterising humans as the only moral creatures may contribute to justifying a view of our species as superior to the rest, and of nature as being somehow at our disposal Remember the countless times slaves have been mentioned. >However, we will argue that this is not the only ethical consequence attached to the idea of animals as moral subjects. It is generally assumed that the kind of ethical treatment a certain being is entitled to depends upon the type of being she is. >While this idea has been questioned by some authors >most ethicists consider that a species’ features are the cornerstone of the type of ethical treatment its members deserve >White, for example, links the very idea of ethics to the appreciation of a species’ capacities. He does so by referring to the notion of vulnerability: Pay attention, because this is important. >Ethics—our labeling actions as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’—is grounded in the idea that the type of consciousness that we have gives us special capacities and vulnerabilities. When we label something as ‘wrong’, then, we’re saying that it crosses the line with regard to not respecting some fundamental feature that makes us human. (White 2007, 155)
Gavin Hernandez
>It seems, indeed, plausible to consider that the ways in which members of a species can be harmed make them vulnerable in certain specific ways, and, in turn, shape the kinds of duties we might hold towards them. For instance, it makes no sense to say of a non-sentient being that she has a right not to be subjected to unnecessary pain. Taking this idea as our point of departure, we will argue that there is a specific kind of harm that can affect moral subjects as such, and that certain specific rights or entitlements follow from this. And, importantly, we will argue that this specific kind of harm cannot be captured merely by saying that the individual is suffering, that her experiential welfare is impaired.
Daniel Sullivan
Idk bro, that Hippo pussy just be hittin different
Go back to the part where a zoophile says that it's a-okay to penetrate his slave. Yep. Do you know why it's perceived as wrong? Because it crosses the line with regards to not respecting some fundamental feature that makes us human. What's the fundamental feature that makes us human? Why, it's what makes us moral agents. It's what doesn't make those moral subjects, moral agents. It's that distinction, that division, between us and the moral subjects who are ultimately incapable of being held morally responsible for their actions. But not us. We're culpable. We can be held accountable. We can make decisions they cannot. This is the problem. This is why the animal fucking is rape. This is it. Informed consent is a uniquely human thing, and no animal can reciprocate that. They cannot understand that. It is not for them. This act of sex from a human to an animal can only then be something other than what follows when you involve things like informed consent. What follows, when there is a sincere, communicated, concerted exchange of information on what's expected to happen and what's happening, with confirmation of both things. And what is that? We call it rape. And since every human being isn't a model version of something that could be the perfect hypothetical, none of the many zoophiles are such that can reasonably interpret "body language", especially given that it's the nature of "body language" that renders their justifications moot. "Body language" is the epitome of the limits that constrain a moral subject. Moral, subject. They are subjected in a number of ways by the human being. "Body language" is the part where the specific kind of harm cannot be captured merely by saying whether the individual is suffering, that their experimental welfare is impaired.
This is a basic concept for most people, and most of them don't even need to put it into words to communicate that shared understanding. But not zoophiles.
Sebastian Rodriguez
>daily y u do dis
Ryan Russell
This is a basic concept for most people, and most of them don't even need to put it into words to communicate that shared understanding. But not zoophiles.
Now because this is an argument involving zoophiles, let's make the welfarism more appropriate. >We are going to argue that the ethical implications that follow from moral subjecthood cannot be captured solely in terms of welfare. The word ‘welfare’ has many different meanings, stemming from debates in axiology, political philosophy, animal ethics, and animal welfare science. For present purposes, we will use it in a narrow sense, to signify ‘experiential welfare’ or ‘subjective quality of life,’ in the hedonistic sense of these terms. >Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters The part about hedonism is important. >Two prominent ways of interpreting utility are, to use Cohen’s (1993) terms; preference satisfaction, that is, a way of treating how people make preference orderings of states of the world with their preference being more satisfied as higher ranking states are reached; and hedonic welfare, that is a desirable or agreeable state of consciousness- enjoyment or happiness or even pleasure. The second interpretation has a long tradition (e.g. thegreatest happiness for the greatest number) though even Bentham had already insisted that there was no “sufficiently manifest connection between the idea of happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and the idea of utility, on the other”(quoted in Roemer, 1996, p. 13). researchgate.net/publication/283362207_Welfarism_and_extra_welfarism We're talking about considering both the desirable state of consciousness for the animal, and the preferences, or lack thereof, from which an animal might have in their behavior.
Ryan Nelson
>the nature of animal minds with regard to their capacity to feel pain and other adverse feelings can form the basis for an ethical account of experiential well-being in animals >On the other hand, experiential well-being is at the core of one of the most important and most recognized principles in animal ethics, i.e., the principle of non-maleficence >This principle asks us not to cause extensive unnecessary harm to others without their consent >Among them is, most importantly, the rule to provide for the basic physical and psychological needs of animals that are under human care >This means that welfare ethics establishes an argument that connects physical and psychological needs with welfare and connects welfare with a normative value. >If animal ethics is concerned with animal welfare and welfare is indeed “solely [dependent] on the mental, psychological and cognitive needs of the animals concerned” >then the range of connections among capacities, needs and welfare must be considered >However, some ethical problems cannot be fully captured by welfare approaches. If good welfare was the only important ethical premise, then we could potentially instrumentalize, objectify, ridicule, or even kill animals as we like—as long as we did it painlessly. >The question is if doing so still constitutes kinds of harms that occur even if the animals do not immediately suffer. In humans, at least, we clearly assume that objectification for example does damage to a human's dignity even if the person herself may not perceive it that way. Therefore, many ethicists meanwhile employ concepts such as respect and dignity in animal ethics as well (213), and develop approaches based on considering the animals' capabilities (205), integrity (214), or rights (215), Such accounts bear the potential to argue beyond the claim of welfare. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383588/
Austin Gomez
Something something violating vunerabilities. It should surprise no one that most zoophiles argue on the basis of hedonistic welfare. "I'm not hurting the animal", they say. Things of that nature. So: >What characterises the form of welfarism that we are concerned with, and constitutes the focus of our critique, is the endorsement of a hedonistic account of the good, according to which the only intrinsic good is pleasure (understood, in a broad sense, to encompass both physical pleasure and psychological enjoyment), and the only intrinsic bad is pain (understood, in a broad sense, to encompass both physical pain and psychological suffering). >There are several well-known problems that follow from hedonistic accounts of the good >These problems stem from two questionable claims involved in hedonism. On the one hand, one can question that all forms of pleasure are intrinsically good, for it seems that how one obtains pleasure also adds to its value or disvalue. On the other hand, there appear to be many other things that we value as intrinsically good besides pleasure >This is exemplified by the classic “experience machine” thought experiment (Nozick 1974, 42–45). This machine would provide us with a non-stop flow of pleasurable experiences if we were to be plugged into it instead of living our ‘real’ lives. The fact that we would not be willing to plug ourselves into it illustrates that there are other things we value in life besides pleasurable experiences Ask yourself honestly. When some of you say you "give" your pets orgasms, are you doing them a service? Is it at all not possible that this is something they could not want, but through their nature or conditioning, are unable to get away from? There's already a disparity in power, I don't see why it's unreasonable to consider that you could be rationalizing and humanizing away the dog, all for your jollies. That's particularly a case of not respecting the dog, too.
Carson Turner
Not him but where can I find your vids?
Aaron Reed
And consider this. >Sumner has defended a form of welfarism that “requires that a subject’s endorsement of the conditions of her life, or her experiences of them as satisfying or fulfilling, be authentic” >which means that the subject has to be autonomous and properly informed. This authenticity condition allows Sumner to escape Nozick’s objection. However, Sumner appears to not merely consider pleasure as intrinsically valuable, but also autonomy, since for him it is of high importance to preserve “the authority of welfare subjects to determine for themselves which goods they will pursue in their lives” >The value of autonomy appears to be intrinsic and not merely instrumental, for he does not simply present it as a tool to ensure enjoyable experiences, but appears to value it in itself Zoophiles also tend to unconsciously try this as an argument. The animal may be in heat, and the zoophiles take advantage of that. The key takeaway is that the zoophiles take advantage of that. It's not enough that there's some kind of autonomy, because it's not that a creature is properly informed about what is to happen. There's also the matter of its nature as a moral subject, it's vunerabilities, and that >the ethical implications that follow from moral subjecthood cannot be captured solely in terms of welfare >his theory does not qualify as ‘welfarist’ in the sense in which we are using the term
Samuel Ortiz
>the ways in which members of a species can be harmed make them vulnerable in certain specific ways, and, in turn, shape the kinds of duties we might hold towards them >we will argue that this specific kind of harm cannot be captured merely by saying that the individual is suffering >our aim here is to criticise a less sophisticated form of welfarism, in which the sole criterion for determining the well-being of an individual is the presence or otherwise of pleasure and pain >Welfarism, thus understood, is not very popular as an account of human well-being So perish the thought of "rewarding" animals. They did not ask for a reward of that nature.
>We consider that welfarism is problematic if we pretend it to account for all the components of a good life, and, conversely, it is also problematic if we pretend it to account for all the possible harms that can affect an individual >We are going to defend the claim that if one is a moral subject, then one can be subjected to a specific type of harm that (1) cannot obtain when one lacks moral subjecthood, and (2) cannot be fully explained in terms of welfare >In order to defend this idea, we will use the example of a sow that we shall call Sustitia Hello, Sustitia. >First, we will offer a characterisation of Sustitia as an individual who is being harmed in a way that can be fully captured from a welfarist perspective. We shall call her Sustitia 1. Then, we will turn Sustitia into a moral subject, for the purpose of illustrating how welfarism cannot give a proper account of the ethical implications in this case. We shall call this second individual Sustitia 2. And wouldn't you know it, they're both sows. >Both Sustitia 1 and Sustitia 2 may resemble actual sows in certain respects, but it is very important to bear in mind that they are not meant to be real, or even realistic, sows, but rather two hypothetical constructs that we will use to illustrate our point. Remember that.
At this point, however, I'll end up either paraphrasing or directly quoting the sources. Like I said would happen. And frankly, as I type this, I realize that the only people who will get something from this, are those who actively make the decision to read through the sources.
Christian Nelson
So here's what's going on with Sustitia 1. She's a simple being, her needs are limited to nutrition, rest, and reproduction. But she's sentient. She has an ability to experience physical sensations, experience pleasure, and experience pain. The pain and pleasure have subjective qualities of "feeling like something" to her. Pain is bad, pleasure is good. Sustitia then can experience affective states of being. Moods can feel good and bad. She can then also experience moods that come from objects, things that will make her experience moods like happiness or sadness. There are things that will distress her, or make her angry, and so on and so forth. In summary, Sustitita 1 will experience things in the world as good or bad, depending on how they make her feel. That's it. >Sustitia 1 lives on a farm. Since the moment she reached adulthood, she has been kept in a stall that is too small for her to move around freely. All she can do is stand up and lie down, which causes her stress and pain. To facilitate cleaning, the floor of her stall is slatted, which causes her claws to overgrow, resulting in painful leg and claw injuries, shoulder lesions, and teat damage. The food she is fed is low in fibre, leading to painful stomach ulcers. She is forced to urinate and defecate in the same place where she sleeps, which she finds extremely unpleasant. A couple of times per year, she is made pregnant through artificial insemination. Her human handlers are not always properly trained, and the insemination is often painful and scary. When she is about to give birth, she is put into a farrowing crate, where she will be kept for four weeks in a row, and which restricts her movements even further, causing even more distress and pain. Once the piglets are weaned, she is put back in her stall, and the cycle begins again. >As we can see, Sustitia1 is often in pain or distressed, and this psychological and physical suffering is a direct result of the way in which her human owners keep her.
>As things stand in this example, it seems reasonable to say that Sustitia1 is being harmed by her owners, given that these husbandry conditions lead her to suffer almost continuously. The harm that Sustitia1 undergoes is by no means negligible. On the contrary, a plausible case could be made to argue that a fundamental right of Sustitia1—the right not to be subjected to extensive and unnecessary suffering—is being violated. We do not want to lessen the importance of this harm. However, we do want to highlight that this is a harm that can be fully accounted for in terms that refer solely to Sustitia1’s subjective experience. Of course, one could argue that, on account of being a farm animal, Sustitia 1 is also being harmed because she has had her freedom taken away from her, or because she is being commodified or exploited. These are fair points, but we want to bracket the harm that comes from her overall life experience and focus on the specific harm that results directly from her husbandry conditions: the inadequate flooring, the restricted space, and so on. The latter is a harm that takes the form of a subjective negative experience. Because these conditions make her suffer, and her suffering is a bad thing, Sustitia 1 is harmed by them. If Sustitia1 were to find these living conditions pleasant or enjoyable, then they wouldn’t harm her (although, of course, it might still be wrong to exploit her). The harm that Sustitia1 undergoes as a direct result of her husbandry conditions consists of her suffering. It is a welfare problem. Things to take away from this: why in the world do you not see why the slave dynamic poses so many problems for this argument of sexing your pets? How can you go there, and still miss what this is suggesting? There are specific parts of what makes it so bad, that some of you zoophiles very nearly address, only to miss them completely as you mention all these things. Like >castration castration castration castration
Christian Peterson
>Our characterisation of Sustitia 1 has not provided us with any reason to think that she is a moral subject, for she has been described as a fairly simple individual with entirely self-centred interests So let's go examine a moral subject, then. >Now, let’s turn Sustitia into a moral subject. Accordingly, we shall now refer to her as Sustitia 2. What makes her different from Sustitia 1 is that Sustitia 2 does not just suffer due to her own life conditions, she is also concerned with the well-being of the sows and piglets in her environment. She is surrounded by sows who are kept in the same conditions as her, and who are thus displaying continuous signs of distress. She also has to witness piglets undergoing tail-docking, teeth-clipping, and castration without anaesthesia or analgesia In a nutshell, it's even more clear that Sustitia 2's welfare is being violated. She can have empathy for the well-being of all the pigs in the environment, and she's being prevented from acting on that moral motivation fully. She satisfies conditions required to be considered a moral subject; she has a sensitivity to the good-making or bad-making features of a situatios, where the sensitivity can be normatively determined, and where it's grounded in the operations of something reliable. Sustitita 2 suffers. But Sustitia 2 suffers in a way that only a moral subject like Sustitita 2 can. In case this isn't clear, the suffering alone isn't just insufficient to establish that something is wrong. The suffering relies upon Sustitita 2's limited capacities. A sow can't help in this situation.
Funny, that. Because a pet can't help themselves either if their owner has roped them into sexual acts.
>Nussbaum considers that, for each species, there exists a series of capabilities, made up of those things that members of that species are “able to do and to be” >Needless to say, if we are thinking of highly complex species, such as our own, the list of capabilities is immense >But out of all these capabilities, Nussbaum considers that each species has a set of “basic” capabilities, which are distinguished from the rest in that they can be “evaluated as both good and central” >where “good” is understood as being intrinsically valuable, and “central” as being essential to the flourishing of members of that species as the sort of thing they are >In the case of human beings, the basic capabilities include some that can be shared with many other species, like “[b]eing able to move freely from place to place,” and “[b]eing able to have good health,” but also further capabilities that are species-specific, like “[b]eing able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression,” and “[b]eing able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life” Already, this should provide a clear enough distinction between a pig and a human. Species-specific capabilities. >Capabilities, then, are understood as those things one is able to do and to be. With this in mind, there are two ways we can characterise moral emotions in terms of capabilities, depending on whether we focus on what one is able to do because of them or what one is able to be thanks to them. >we can also understand moral emotions as capabilities themselves, if we were to conceptualise them as primarily character traits, that is, as dispositions to feel and behave in certain ways
Nathan Flores
aight wait. if humans are rarely zoophiles then it follows that dog are also rarely, uh... humanphiles. statistically it's very improbable that the sex is consensual.
>Sympathy, for instance, can be understood as the capability to be sympathetic, that is, as a character trait that disposes one to feel distressed in the presence of others in distress and consequently engage in affiliative behaviour. Moral emotions can thus be understood as either grounding certain capabilities, or as capabilities themselves Keeping up? Capabilities as character traits. Species-specific capabilities. Vunerabilities. Autonomy. Moral subjects. Dog bowls. "Rewards".
Adrian Hughes
>If moral emotions akin to sympathy are indeed basic capabilities, this means that the individuals who possess them are entitled to lead lives in which the exercise of these capabilities remains possible for them. We are now at a point where we can start to see the full dimension of the ethical problems implicit in the example of Sustitia 2. As we saw, whenever an animal is treated in a way that thwarts one (or several) of her basic capabilities, she is being harmed. There are two ways in which this thwarting can occur: (1) an animal can be precluded from the possibility of exercising her capability, or (2) she can have her capability taken away from her. Sustitia 2’s case would be an example of (1). Sustitia 2 still possesses sympathy, but she lacks the possibility of exercising it because of the existence of a physical barrier. Despite not being able to do it, she is still capable of caring for others. She still has her capability, but cannot exercise it. Like how a bull or a dog cannot say no. Or, rather, like how a dog is ultimately dependent and otherwise trusting of a human being to magically reveal food whenever certain actions are performed, not being able to know further. >An example of (2) might occur if Sustitia 2 became habituated to the frequent presence of distress cues in her surroundings, to the point where she no longer felt concerned about her conspecifics. She would have become incapable of caring for others. She would have lost her capability. In both cases, Sustitia 2 is being harmed by whoever has placed her in this situation, because her capability has been thwarted as a result. There you go. And suddenly, it's hard to argue that you're not violating your pets because they don't respond to the violation in a way that you say would make you stop. It's fine to sex your pets? Are you sure?
Landon Cooper
>One of the advantages of objective theories like the capabilities approach is that they are permeable to the fact that what one is happy or content with is largely shaped by the environment one develops in. Thus, the fact that one is happy most of the time does not necessarily mean that one’s life is going well, since one’s happiness can be the result of a process of indoctrination or manipulation, or simply a coping mechanism. This was eloquently put by Sen Really read this one. >A person who has had a life of misfortune, with very little opportunities, and rather little hope, may be more easily reconciled to deprivations than others reared in more fortunate and affluent circumstances. The metric of happiness may, therefore, distort the extent of deprivation, in a specific and biased way. Again, are you treating your pets well? >Likewise, in the case of animals, these coping mechanisms may develop and disguise the extent to which animals are harmed in a specific situation, which is one of the reasons why their suffering can be an unreliable measure of their well-being. If Sustitia 2 eventually became habituated to the suffering of her conspecifics and no longer felt distressed when she perceived it, a welfarist would have to conclude that she is no longer being harmed. In fact, from a welfarist perspective, we would have to say that Sustitia 2 has been benefitted due to this habituation process, insofar as it has led her to stop suffering. No one would want to say that, but of course, it could be said. It could be argued. >Anyone who considers sympathy and caringness to be intrinsically valuable character traits must conclude that the welfarist analysis of this example is misguided And that's very much a common consideration for most people. No wonder there's some cognitive dissonance from zoophiles every now and again.
Nathaniel Howard
my god, condense.
Lincoln Rogers
>some human practices may destroy the moral capabilities of animals indirectly, as an unintended side effect of a treatment that has other aims. For example, there have been reports of rats becoming habituated to distress cues from conspecifics after repeated exposure to them during pro-sociality experiments So about that dog fucking... It's almost plasible to say that the majority of the outspoken, recent zoophiles are a collection of sexually nonsadistic rapists. In a nutshell, that would mean that they are driven by sexual fantasies and urges, but the sexual arousal is innapropriate in its nature. In other words, they are driven by fetish. It also includes beliefs that are supportive of offence, alongside feelings of inadequacy regarding masculinity and sex. Now, when you aggressively declare that "your girl" enjoys what you do to them, and they can't actually communicate that in any meaningful way to any other human being, and you routinely get defensive whenever someone questions those activities...
Well? It's bad enough considering the above. The insult to injury is personifying something that clearly lacks the personifications in of itself. And the operative word is still 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 the owner- like a toddler would. Without any input or guidance, it will eat anything it finds, shit anywhere it goes, and likely 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 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, present from birth. Human babies are mostly blank slates and brain stem.
Dominic Taylor
What the zoophile 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 otherwise 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 barks and growls and bites. And it will do those things for a number of reasons, sometimes for no good reason at all. Habits form. Harm isn't necessarily connected to well-being. 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 consenting pets does not add up.
The dog can't negotiate itself out of the relationship, the human is in full control of that. Why? Because the human being, as the owner, as the more complex being, has to be the one to interpret everything. Dogs don't say what is. The human does. 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.
Chase Taylor
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.
The lack of knowledge, the disparity in power, has hopefully been conveyed. It doesn't make it okay. Your pets aren't Sustitita 1, I don't think any of you would think so. The logic I presented, before if not now, 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. Remember the talk of properly bracketing what causes suffering. 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.
Chase Jackson
Recent zoophiles have conceded that acts of sex from adults are almost always harmful to the child, regardless of the child's supposed expression of consent, at least due to psychological variables such as underdevelopment. And there is so much to say about informed consent, psychological development, and behavior. I've said many times that zoophiles tend to make really terrible rationalizations. The claim that all zoophiles are sick isn't entirely baseless. It's not about their sexuality. That's neither here nor there. It's about their mentality, their cognition. Zoophiles are often demonstratably different from the average person. The issue of them being evil isn't something that can actually come from any sort of objective reason, so it's redundant to say that it's baseless. In fact, it perfectly highlights the main issue with zoophiles: they don't think like a hivemind. One will throw out one piece of rationale, and another will contradict them immediately. So if some must die on such a hill: if their "evilness" isn't an issue, then neither are the ethics an issue- and this means that there can be no arguing for whether or not something is okay, from either side. The entirety of their constant justification and rationalization for it being okay for them to sex their pets melts away, and they cannot invoke concepts like "love" or "equality" or anything that has to do with, well-being. I have already had the pleasure of going through arguments where that was the situation.
Dylan Sanchez
The zoophiles eventually decided that it was time to run away from the argument after the constraints came into play- after conceding a lot of unfortunate things, and routinely being unable to commit themselves to the mentality where there is no moral framework, period. That alone highlights the systemic issues that plague their rank and file attempts at defending what they do. They cannot give up the moral framework, so they cannot brush aside the numerous logical objections to the plurality of their justifications and anecdotes, so they cannot in good faith say that they aren't raping their pets. I could just point to individuals on the internet, whom you could easily find and analyze for yourself. 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 dialogue over the taboo.
Carson Cooper
All this hand-wringing over why raping your dog is fine... just admit that it's all you're doing, raping your dog. Because there's something to be said about cruel and unusual punishment, and given the disparity in power, nothing is more cruel and unusual than the human being taking advantage of the lowly slave with their psychological dominance, while dressing it up as "love". There is nothing necessary in your predisposition to want to rape the animal. It is a want. A lust.
I really just have to re-hash what I've typed to address the current audience, but in any case, user put it well.
>She knows it brings you pleasure to lick and finger her >She's doing what she thinks will make the master happy >Dogs are bread to be submissive and compliant >And you provide her with food >If a dog getting their vagina licked means they'll get food >and they know it >they'll let you lick away to keep their dog bowl full
No. You reconcile with the mountain, you dogfucker.
Luis Murphy
post a link to a blog. or create an infographic. or something, anything, holy shit what is this autism
Parker Gutierrez
there's no chance anyone is going to comb through all of those and respond to it. the thread will be dead by the time that happens. the thread will like be dead by the time you're done forming your argument in the first place. it's like you're posting an entire book.
Bentley Watson
It's what you can't run away from in good faith.
Carson Edwards
Try harder
Daniel Mitchell
Try harder
Adam Davis
Try harder
Austin Gray
>unironically and deliberately overcomplicating things (particularly in a medium where an appropriate response wouldn't even be possible because of its ephemeral nature) to distract from the main point, which is: if you can fuck an animal without harming it and provide a pleasant, non-traumatic for the animal experience while doing so, there's nothing wrong with doing that
Why is there one shitty point in your essay Level 1 bait
Asher White
Hi Cenk Uygur! How is the young Turks doing?
Luke Gutierrez
You posted the same pic as the one for your Kik, also, I've heard that story before and wondered where
Jonathan Phillips
What was that einstein quote? Dont judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree...
Brandon Taylor
Ah, so we must have chatted on kik before then? Sorry I dont respond to anyone there, I stopped using kik.
Julian Cox
Nope, I just typed it in just to see and sure enough, you were there. I was never actually brave enough to open a conversation with you lol
Leo Ward
Who hurt you, son?
Jack Peterson
Wrong. You cannot fuck an animal without harming it.
There is no condensing what was given. It's condensed enough. It is the most rounded form of a complete refutation of bestiality, circa 2020. I am not going to truncate it for the sake of misrepresenting bits and pieces of an incomplete argument. Not ever, you fuck. You don't get your cake- you need all parts for the entire thing to address exactly what you'd of brought up. Take it or leave it, but it's there. And you can only pretend that it isn't.
Because it sure as shit exists.
>an appropriate response wouldn't even be possible because of its ephemeral nature You have around an hour if you aren't trying to slide the thread with degenerate porn. More if you abandon the thread because you were just here to get your sick kicks.
Why the fuck would I make an infographic? That's not engaging. I engage you. I engage you, you dogfucker.
Charles Ramirez
Dats a good one, I've met dogs that aren't into people and ones that prefer them over their own kind. About as diverse as people I'd say in that regard
Robert Martin
It's up to the human to tell if the dog is comfortable or not, which is easy enough concerning your mental capacity argument earlier
Owen Torres
Read the entire argument. What you just said is addressed.
Kayden Reyes
Ignoring the species difference of pedo argument, the reason pedo is worse is because the kid will grow up to understand the consequences of what happened. This will never happen with a mature dog so judging it by standards it will never meet is presenting an argument that is unfair in its pretense
James Torres
Aww, too bad. I used to love chatting on kik. Now I just stick to threads like this.
Kevin Wilson
This. Can mr autism just point firm each post into a single one plz? I'm good to listen then if you dont test my attention span
Alexander Perry
>the reason pedo is worse is because We are talking about bestiality. We don't care why pedophilia is worse. We care that bestiality and pedophilia are comorbid.
>This will never happen with a mature dog There is an incredible amount of irony in this one thing that you have typed. Will you ever find out why?
No. Read, degenerate.
Isaac Sanchez
fuck you OP you are an ignorant fag and you are hurting/want to hurt animals
Charles Miller
>You cannot fuck an animal without harming it. still engaging in distraction, I see. hypothetically, if you could fuck an animal without harming it, and provide a pleasant experience for the animal while doing so, what's your problem?
Jason Miller
...
Bentley Sanders
>Read, degenerate. the problem isn't a lack of willingness to read. it's the fact that an appropriate response would literally take days to construct, autismo.
Cameron Williams
This board is called RANDOM not REPOST THE SAME BORING FAGGOTRY EVERY DAY
Get some new material you cancerous little fuckbag.
Levi Stewart
>there's no chance anyone is going to comb through all of those and respond to it. the thread will be dead by the time that happens.
I actually did. It almost entirely boils down to "better safe than sorry", after a lot of prep work to elaborate (very) heavily on the two basic ideas that "not all harm (physical or mental) is visible", and "you can't be sure the animal isn't just playing along".
That's fair...but it's a fundamentally shitty argument. It makes heavy assumptions about the nature of a typical human/animal relationship, specifically that the animal has been conditioned, all its life, to do whatever the owner asks. To an extent, this is also fair, but it's also patently bullshit, as evidenced by the various "bad habits" than many animals exhibit throughout their lives. Despite the efforts of their owners, these may well persist, to some degree, indefinitely, depending on the animal (which we'll just assume is a dog, because, let's be real, it's almost always a dog). The dog is clearly not completely bereft of its own will at all times. At that point, you could only argue against bestiality on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, there is no rationale why sex, specifically, is different from any other interaction between human and animal, insofar that there should be a line drawn between "okay" and "not okay". At best, there is only a passing mention that the same arguments being presented could potentially be used to argue against pet ownership as a whole. Again, fair, but, without meaningfully differentiating between a typical human/pet relationship and a sexual human/pet relationship, you _are_ arguing against pet ownership as a whole. This entire wall of text easily applies to every pet owner, regardless of whether or not they have sex with their pets. Yet, as of now, society holds no ill will against them.
Ryder Parker
I thought you were smart enough to see my point without pointing out the flaw. I'll agree to the flaw, but that doesn't 100% excuse the point as I claim some humans act in service to the animal, not only themselves. Where is your justification that all humans dont?
Jaxson Cooper
You won friend. +1 from me
Tyler Phillips
There's nothing morally special about sex as a form of pleasure or play, especially to animals. If humans have a made-up problem with sex as a form of play, that's their problem. There is no reason that, besides harm factors, sex should be considered special compared to playing fetch.
Some alien species could have sacred fetch rituals which they suppose are not to be taken lightly, and they would be perfectly fine fucking dogs under safe conditions, but not playing fetch with them, because they have made-up norms perpetuated through precedent and peer pressure that the dog must consent to it because, to them, it's *such a grand matter of moral significance* that the dog be picky about who to play fetch with, and that they understand how the game works and the *deep* nuances of every throw and catch and stride.
They would think "wouldn't want those dogs playing fetch with the swirly-nippled people; if they had *our* cultural inoculation — the culture of the pointy-nippled people which is to be taken for granted as correct — those poor dogs would feel so traumatized by the thought that they actually enjoyed playing fetch with a swirly-nippled person!"
And then "Booooo hoooo! Waaaa! Culturally uninformed fetch which leaves everyone happier and causes no meaningful harm waaaaaaaa uhuhuhuhuhuuuuuu they should have my tastes how dare they enjoy something I am personally disgusted by I don't want to live in a reality where sentient beings enjoy things that I don't waaaaaa I'm traumatized just thinking about it"
Hudson Bell
the contents of the thread clearly change randomly every day even if the first post is identical to make it easy to find
can we expect any new videos at any point in the future?
Carter Adams
(con't) Simply, the entire argument is essentially a description of the power dynamic between pet and owner, but completely fails to elaborate on why this one act _specifically_ is so much more risky than any of the other reward/punishment scenarios that are common in everyday pet/owner interactions. Without that...the entire thing is worthless.
Brayden Green
Hard to say. I'm hoping to get another dog soon.
Cameron Barnes
Make sure you get this in a pasta, because the dudes essay shows up here all the time. Also think that sexual procreation is one of the fundamental behaviours that tie almost all life together on this planet. You can see it as a dichotomy as potentially one of the best or worst things you can do for an organism, regardless of species. It all falls down to the immediate experience which should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not blanket dehumanizing like what were seeing here.
Isaiah Phillips
Please, say it louder for the nigs in the back of the bus
>if you could You cannot. There's a hypothetical outlining why, and it involves pigs. >provide a pleasant experience for the animal while doing so You don't read.
>it's the fact that an appropriate response would literally take days to construct Is it any wonder why the argument was called a "mountain", then?
That you think it would take days to construct a response to any of the axioms is precious. That's because the whole thing has been crafted against wave, after wave, after wave of degenerate dogfuckery. You know why you can't easily refute anything in a concrete fashion.
Matthew Morris
>It almost entirely boils down to "better safe than sorry" It doesn't. It boils down to "it's not right, and zoophiles are inconsistent".
>it's a fundamentally shitty argument Take what was typed, and establish >"you can't be sure the animal isn't just playing along" Without twisting rationalizations.
>It makes heavy assumptions about the nature of a typical human/animal relationship It does not. >specifically that the animal has been conditioned Domesticated animals are domesticated animals. >this is also fair >but it's also patently bullshit Pick 1, and only 1. >as evidenced by the various "bad habits" than many animals exhibit throughout their lives That is not evidence to the contrary. It's already been said that animals are instinctual to begin with, but reasons for why "bad habits" discount the fairness of stating that domesticated animals exist, isn't clear at all.
>there is no rationale why sex You just want to fuck dogs, don't you. And you don't read. "Passing mention" my ass, there are 4 paragraphs and 1 drawn out hypothetical. >without meaningfully differentiating between a typical human/pet relationship and a sexual human/pet relationship They are the same goddamned thing in that instance, and it was discerningly depicted. "Typical"? Do you want to tell me what's "Typical"?
>you _are_ arguing against pet ownership as a whole And? Words have already been said on that matter. In that mountain of text.
>You can see it as a dichotomy as potentially one of the best or worst things you can do for an organism, regardless of species. Why worst? If you make a few common and sympathetic mistakes of reasoning, you could argue persuasively that it might be the "best" thing by presuming that animals give a fuck about spreading genes, but there's no reason why an animal should not want to have sex besides harm factors.
By worse, I mean a party is capable of forcing the act. I was trying to say that sex is either(organically speaking) the best thing or worst thing to happen to an organism and it all depends on how THEY perceive their role in the matter, not the powers that set the law of the land.
John Anderson
I love the really big, fluffy ones like newfies and saints. danes and goldens are cool too
Brayden Sanchez
Refusing to go to imaginary scenarios shows lack of creativity and close mindedness. Your nazi is showing
Evan Richardson
If the sky was purple it would likely indicate either a different gas composition or an unusual amount of light given the typical day/night cycle. What of it?
See, it’s easy to reply to a hypothetical, and then ask why that hypothetical was relevant. You’re just being obtuse, and that coming from someone that mostly agrees with you.
Colton Walker
Replace "animal" with "loli" and I'll consider it
Levi Turner
+1 brother
Jace Edwards
>smart enough to see my point without pointing out the flaw Go fuck yourself.
>but that doesn't 100% excuse the point as I claim Your claim is irrelevant because of that flaw. No one need justify that all humans don't do x.
>There's nothing morally special about sex as a form of pleasure or play You tell that to the myriad of zoophiles that argue these things. >If humans have a made-up problem with sex as a form of play Then they needlessly involve other creatures in the tangle of their lives whenever sex is involved. You are far too quick to insist that if it's out of sight, it's out of mind. Again, the very sentiments you're espousing have already been mentioned.
Doggie no understand, so it's fine.
>Some alien species could have sacred fetch rituals which they suppose are not to be taken lightly And we can understand that we'd need to obey those rituals, or else, refuse to play fetch. Not an alien concept. >because they have made-up norms perpetuated through precedent and peer pressure >the culture of the pointy-nippled people which is to be taken for granted as correct Oh, fuck off. The fact that it's an artificial construct isn't the issue. You've read all 16% of what was typed. Brainless.
>those poor dogs would feel so traumatized by the thought that they actually enjoyed playing fetch with a swirly-nippled person No, because they're dogs. Did you not understand that part?
Jack Barnes
Bullshit, there are given reasons why that one specific act isn't the same as playing fetch.
>no one's asking about whether or not you can irl No one's saying you can IRL. Someone's saying you can't, theoretically. >refuse to answer Motherfucker, there is a whole several answers why.
>choosing to deliberately ignore given information in order to attack the position
Considering your position dictates your state on this matter considerably, and no longer represents the majority opinion(normies), it's fair to say your points may not justify the majority's opinion aswell. So in the end, cry more because your ideals wont work out one way or another LMAO
see and continue reading from there. Or, don't. Go finger Fido while shamelessly suggesting that a hypothetical can't be invalidated by a whole other hypothetical dealing with the so-called hypothetical.
Theory requires logic, you brainlet. The "hypothetical" you just gave is incompatible with a more thorough and protracted one that manages to touch on things you barely scratched at. The logical maxim of what you gave has been argued better by others than you, and that dead horse has been beaten to a slick sheen of non-toxic glue.
For why would a hypothetical address a hypothetical? For why would a hypothetical instead be describing the practical? For why?
that's mostly a cultural remnant of white people using dogs to attack them. their fear of dogs stems from their fear of police dogs, which stems from their fear of police. still a big loss on their party tho
Their urges for sex are just as instinctual as ours, we just have the capacity to see if it suits our situation or not. Dogs are of a simpler situation so their own capacity matches up to it just fine. You wouldn't expect a dog to do calculus, so why would you expect it to have human sex traits such as fetishes, social and worldly consequences of the act? To them if it feels or doesn't feel right is all they need to show their comfort/discomfort.
>It boils down to "it's not right, and zoophiles are inconsistent".
No, it doesn't. The whole thing sets up a framework that establishes that animals can suffer mental anguish that isn't strictly and directly related to their own welfare, followed by the claim that a pet may be willing to suffer in order to either please its owner or to avoid future suffering.
That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't establish why sex is worse than any other particular form of suffering. The ATTEMPTED argument against sex is "they can't consent", but, if they can't consent to sex, they surely can't consent meaningfully to ANYTHING the owner does to them. By the framework established previously, this is robbing the animal of its agency. For the purposes of this argument, any act that does this is bad, and it doesn't matter whether it's getting them to do tricks for edible treats, or getting them to jump on your back for a quick root.
>Take what was typed, and establish >>"you can't be sure the animal isn't just playing along" >Without twisting rationalizations.
Likewise, in the case of animals, these coping mechanisms may develop and disguise the extent to which animals are harmed in a specific situation, which is one of the reasons why their suffering can be an unreliable measure of their well-being
Pretty much outright stating that previous suffering leading to current behavior/emotional response means you cannot take an apparent positive reaction at face value. I.E. "better safe than sorry".
Andrew Phillips
>>There's nothing morally special about sex as a form of pleasure or play >You tell that to the myriad of zoophiles that argue these things. But zoophiles know that; I don't need to tell them.
>You are far too quick to insist that if it's out of sight, it's out of mind. You must think I have some reason to think animals share your squeamishness. What are those reasons, which are not outweighed by the fact that they volunteer to fuck, which have not been addressed by ?
>>Some alien species could have sacred fetch rituals which they suppose are not to be taken lightly >And we can understand that we'd need to obey those rituals, or else, refuse to play fetch. Not an alien concept. Are you serious? You're telling me that whatever norms a species creates have to be respected? Well how about a society of people who think sorting pebbles is sacred, and doing anything else is immoral and disgusting? Should you have to respect that? Why not?
>Oh, fuck off. The fact that it's an artificial construct isn't the issue. You've read all 16% of what was typed. Brainless. Your text is a long way of making terrible arguments which all rely on one false idea, that there is something special about sex.
>>those poor dogs would feel so traumatized by the thought that they actually enjoyed playing fetch with a swirly-nippled person >No, because they're dogs. Did you not understand that part? "Would" was the keyword, buddy. That's the argument you're essentially making, right? If animals had our acculturation, they would want something different from the fulfilment of hedonism, is what you're implying, and that's why they would choose differently than to have sex with a zoophile, and you think any belief system which isn't as squeamish as the tipper-gores of our society like you is incapable of making valid decisions.
Liam Wright
agree and when they clamp down after a good 30 minute dicking thats the best part.
I've taken more impartial positions in the past to serve the exact purpose of having a forthcoming discussion. What I learned, is that there is ironically little depth to plumb when it comes to the majority of you dogfuckers. So, I am giving you the exact pretense of calling you a dogfucker and considering you a degenerate whose filth is beyond reproach.
The shoe fits.
>justify the majority's opinion When the fuck did they ever need to do that? What does this mean? Explain to me what sort of meaningful function this sentence serves. You need to justify someone's opinions? When? Why? What does that do for them? Are you some kind of braindead zombie?
Does your brain not fuck? Can you not rub 2 braincells together, and make a spark? >cry more because your ideals wont work out one way or another LMAO Goddamned dogfucking validation-seeking >owo degenerate simp furry faggot. What in the ever-loving fuck does that matter in a forum of normal fucking people. My ideals? Oh no, that's terrible! Who the fuck cares?
Self fagging to previous post. I think theres a cool experiment to do. Theres a youtube known dog called Sally that was trained to communicate with her owner via buttons that say a word when they are pressed. I was impressed with some of the basic level sentence structure happening there, now imagine if a zoo's pet was trained with the zoo vocabulary included. Who thinks the dog would be capable of literally ASKING FOR IT?
Brandon Murphy
Hey guys, random question, does anyone happen to know if weed produces a high that works well with fishing or if alcohol is still king there?
Alcohol for sitting back, weed for either cleaning or sex
That's a cool idea but I hate how these idiots keep relating their adult slave animals to children. It's always these middle aged women who never had kids.
Also the majority opinion dictates the laws, which is what I'm concerned about, not your moralistic nonsense because one is bound to affect me while the other amuses me
Jonathan Sanders
I'd honestly say just try it, different headspaces from either and when I'm fishing I'm in my head a lot
Jackson Wood
This is the first time I've tried to use Cred Forums on my phone and I'm seeing ads(haven't seen ads on my desktop since like 2010), and i gotta say - these ads have amazing cinematography!
Angel Morris
It seems like a lot of argument for just sticking your dick into a hot fur sluts hole and spurting inside.
Why overthink it? If the dog is happy and has enough space, food, respect, and equality?
The overthinking comes from the opposition's need to rationalize their disgust. Same thing happened to gays way back when
Thomas Baker
YES PLEASE LOUDER FOR THE KANTIANS IN THE BACK
Henry Allen
Yeah but statistics my dude. A few exceptions here and there doesn't mean it isn't usually animal abuse, and thus we have to outlaw the thing in its entirety.
Eli Davis
wat
yea basically but these tools are gonna end up in alimony court 20 years from now so their problem. If they are anti zoo it's because they are bigots.
>No >it doesn't I authored the damn thing with both of my fingers and cut out over 30 pages' worth of text and trivium, so I must certainly know what it doesn't and doesn't boil down to.
But tell me what I was thinking when I very neatly crafted the words, "dogfucker".
>The whole thing sets up a framework that establishes that animals can suffer mental anguish that isn't strictly and directly related to their own welfare >followed by the claim that a pet may be willing to suffer in order to either please its owner or to avoid future suffering Want to boil that down? I wonder how that would work, if I just snip all these pieces out and give you an incomplete picture? Context? What context, you don't need that! Oh, wait. Greentext that goes the distance when it comes to accurately representing something integral. I wonder... >suffering Oh, wait, suffering. That's all fine and dandy. Time for your 400 degree bath, pussycat.
>but it doesn't establish why sex is worse than any other particular form of suffering Please, continue to deliberately go out of your way not to greentext the inconvenient parts of the thing. And, do make more irrelevant arguments that attempt to completely circumvent the original objections and the very neatly-focuses lenses that came with them. Whenever we mention that pedophilia pops up with bestiality, with some kind of incidence rate, let's just start arguing why pedophilia is worse- despite the fact that we're concerned with bestiality, and the fact that pedophilia showed up must, must, exist to support some form of argument concerned bestiality as a main topic of focus.
Sex? Who cares if it's been said that it could be bad! You know what? There can be worse things than sex! Like murder! Murder is worse than sex, therefore everything you said is wrong!
Or, not.
Levi Wilson
>>this is also fair >>but it's also patently bullshit >Pick 1, and only 1.
This is me being flippant, and you know damn well what I meant. Yes, we teach animals certain behaviors and to do things they may not want to do or not to do things they want to do. But that doesn't mean they're going to be agreeable all the time, nor will they pretend to be perpetually happy and content at all times.
>It's already been said that animals are instinctual to begin with Yeah, with no follow up as to why this is a problem. At worst, you could go back to the argument about abusing their instincts to rob them of their agency, but, once again, that doesn't apply to sex in particular.
>"Passing mention" my ass, there are 4 paragraphs and 1 drawn out hypothetical. Well I sure as shit can't find them. Maybe be clearer next time.
>"Typical"? Do you want to tell me what's "Typical"? One owns a dog, doing all the usual dog owner things. The other does all the same things, but also gets knotted every now and again. I'm sure you have at least some idea of what "normal" people do with their dogs.
>And? Words have already been said on that matter. In that mountain of text. Yeah, as was pointed out. Followed shortly by pointing out that, as stated, the entire argument DOES apply to pet ownership. Followed, in turn, that there's only a poor attempt at a distinction between the two.
Blake Green
>The ATTEMPTED argument against sex is "they can't consent" Argument. >if they can't consent to sex >they surely can't consent meaningfully to ANYTHING the owner does False. "Informed consent" and the concepts needed to understand that are specifically mentioned. There's no ambiguity there. Pains were made to exactly address what you just tried to bring up. How are you going to ignore that? >this is robbing the animal of its agency Oh? So, did you not read anything about food being shoved in one's mouth? Sounds like the answer is "no". Hint: already addressed for longer than it needed to be.
>any act that does this is bad You misrepresent so much of the argument. Wholesale, any act that does this is bad, no nuance, no protracted paragraphs? On God? >it doesn't matter whether it's getting them to do tricks for edible treats Bullshit. If you're divvying up the concepts mentioned therein, then you can absolutely say why you're concerned with the whether or not of it. It is specifically addressing bestiality. Specifically that one thing. Laying out why. For what reasons, even. Especially concerning zoophiles, and what they say and do.
You disingenuous fuck. >you cannot take an apparent positive reaction at face value And that's not the end of the argument, is it? Let's just ignore the sum, for a part. Hi-ho, strawman.
Cooper Gutierrez
Dogs don't generally have sexual orientations the way people do. They'll fuck anything. Dogs, ducks, people, pillows, piles of trash...they don't care.
>Not violently forcing your friends dog into hardcore, chokeplay scat bondage where it has to lick peanut butter off your balls throughout while its puppies watch Yeah alright OP you sanctimonious, self righteous fuck. Why do you hate people having fun?
Always wanted to try having sex with a dog but could never get my dick in. I'm almost 8" and thick. I got a new pitbull and it ended up having puppies. As soon as she was done giving birth I went to try and slide my dick inside since she was all stretched out.
Her pitbull pussy was still contracting like mad from giving birth. Fucked her every day for over a month until her pussy closed right back up. Got my girlfriend to watch me do it once and she told me not to cum inside the dog but I did anyways lol.
If y'all actually care about the ethics of this(big if), and are interested in looking at this seriously(another big if), basically i think that the strongest argument we have against being able to justify sexual interaction with animals is that they cannot consent because they do not possess the mental capacity to give consent because they are of substantial subhuman intelligence.
Mind you, if you're really like "Fuck it, i don't care about morality, it's hot, and i won't get caught" - then i'm not talking to you, go, be free, and follow your dreams of fuckin' some animal. But to those of you who actually care about the potential moral problems(if only to figure out how to engineer around them), i think that 'can't consent because categorically not at the level of a "mentally mature human adult"' is the biggest moral stumbling block.
Jacob Cook
Honestly I think this argument has gone in too many circles to be productive for either side. Either I'm tired or retarded but I dont even know if you're the pro dogfucker or antidogfucker anymore lool
Robert Hughes
There's no reason not to cum in a bitch, but be careful or ur girl might go out and tell people.
That's why just fucking bitches is better. I have four to fuck everyday and I keep their vags from stretching out by just fucking 3-4 times a week with whoever in the pack is up for it.
Huh. Seems like you're right. I've always avoided these discussions out of pure visceral disgust but reading through the counter arguments I'm wondering if the only people genuinely against this are mentally ill, retarded, or both >durr animals don't want sex >durr they lack mental capacity >durr it's harmful to them mentally
It's like yeah buddy of course any of that makes any sense whatsoever. I'm just gonna back to smothering my ham sandwich with lard, it's all good bro no mental anguish suffered they were chopped up painlessly and consensually to become this delicious sandwich I totally have the moral high ground here.
Hunter Evans
There are edge cases here, I have personally seen dogs prefer people or their own kind. If they get enough sex to not be zombies to their urges then they can develop preferences, it's just that their owners never let them get their rocks off
>You must think I have some reason to think animals share your squeamishness I don't. Animals don't share my squeamishness either. That's been established in all that you are deliberately choosing to gloss over for the sake of playing with the dark arts of being a faggot. Pay attention to where I repeatedly establish the distinction between a human being, and a non-human being.
You can't miss it, it's very overt. It's in every "dogfucker" and "degenerate" and "species" and "pet" and "capacity" and...
>You're telling me that whatever norms a species creates have to be respected No, you dumbshit. I'm telling you that we, as human beings, aren't going to respond to this "alien concept" like a dog would. False equivalence. Get that shit gone. It would be appropriate if we couldn't at all understand the hypothetical, or even act upon it if it ever were somehow real. And, shocker, cultural norms exist. So, what the fuck? No.
>Your text is a long way of making terrible arguments which all rely on one false idea Fuck you and the horsedick you rode in on. That is not what my argument relies on. There is no single thread it relies upon. That's why it's so fucking long. It fucks, it goes places- and it doesn't fuck dogs. That isn't even the main theme, and you know it isn't.
>"Would" was the keyword They would not. The argument I am essentially making, is that they would not. If animals had out acculration, they would. They can't. They do not. They would not, if we stop pretending or imagining that they could, or do, or would. Because they don't, and they can't, so what we're hypothetically entertaining has no basis in reality such that we can ever justify it in the real. Wishful thinking, that I'd ever be the strawman you're making for yourself. "They would want something different from the fufilment". Motherfucker, their biology constrains them. Acculturation wouldn't change that.
Why waste time arguing when you can do it instead and let the female dog's body tell you how much she likes it? With every clamp and lick as you blast inside HNNHNHNNGGGG
I think you need to remember that it's not impossible to advocate for the devil. Good arguments don't skimp the opportunity to argue the opposition with integrity- and they sure as shit don't misrepresent the other party for the sake of something dark and sinister.
>Also the majority opinion dictates the laws Oh? So a lot of people possess the opinions therein? Or no, they don't, and a lot of people want to fuck dogs? Pick 1, because that would mean the "moralistic nonsense" that is initially held by every zoophile who wants to justify their acts and opinions is part of the majority opinion that I ultimately don't affect.
You can't extricate that shit, if true.
Caleb Campbell
To bounce off of that, they will never in their life reach a point where they can consent as a human can, simply impossible, yet they fuck and like to fuck.
Heard of pyometra in unfixed bitches, what's the deal with that?
At the end of the day, I dont think they're even formatting to convince any of us, they just want to stir the shit because they feel icky with the idea
Lol alien concept, it's only alien because you were told and indoctrinated to think its alien
Justin Ward
HHHNNNHMNHNNGGG
Gavin Sanchez
True, but it doesn't matter what they do to each other. We're asking about our actions here. Like even if technically according to our rules, basically all sub-human animal sex is constant horrifying like... toddler sex... we aint doin' it, so it aint on us. But if we fuck 'em, then- then that's on us.
Jason Myers
>Heard of pyometra in unfixed bitches, what's the deal with that?
You need to do a weekly vaginal UF honey treatment to prevent it. Aside from that, there's no issues coming inside every time. But you just keep her trimmed and clean, so she doesn't get sick, and she will stay fine and happy.
I'm sure most normies would warm up to the idea like they did with gays, it just takes a little cultural evolution and older gens like yourself to die off and repurpose social norms
That's fair when considering our rules. But I think you can see that the rules were made reactively and emotionally, as you had described that we see toddler sex as horrifying.
Samefagging, you could also say the animals have no concept nor regard for OUR rules
Jackson Williams
Why do you think human acculturation is so necessary to make sexual decisions which can be considered legitimate self-expression?
Lucas Cruz
>and you know damn well what I mean I don't, because you've made it habit to do some deceitful things in the time you've taken to misrepresent the argument more times that I have called you a degenerate. And I'm assuming that's on purpose, because you professed that you spent time with it. Don't forgive me if I get the opposite impression. I don't seek it.
>with no follow up as to why this is a problem You think there's no follow up as to why instinctual behavior is a problem to the argument that was being made sentences before itself? Really? >you could go back to the argument about abusing their instincts to rob them of their agency Oh? So it needs to specifically apply to sex to, what?
What does it do, then? Tell me. Tell me why its ability to appeal to a broad range of acts, precludes it from specifically addressing sex. Tell me why the context is fungible. Oh, do tell me.
>Well I sure as shit can't find them >ctrl-f >sow >I am reed entiur argument Yeah, no.
>I'm sure you have at least some idea of what "normal" people do with their dogs So why the fuck was there ever an issue with "typical" ownership? The distinction is pretty clear, even for you. Meaningful, I bet.
>as was pointed out Was not pointed out, because you seem to think that not only have I acknowledged the concept, but that I haven't addressed it, or even argued why it's a nonstarter in this >specific case of discussing dogfuckery. No, let's just abandon the dogfuckery. Ever convenient. >the entire argument DOES apply to pet ownership No one said it didn't! You dogfucking dipshit. There can't be a poor attempt to distinguish between the two if you can clearly and automatically tell me what the distinction is on your very own. It's beyond no one. It was most definitely distinguished between, otherwise, there'd be no mention of >ctrl-f >bowl you disingenuous fuck.
Nicholas Turner
remake THREAD because bump limit is reached
Samuel Walker
1/2 Interesting topic OP. This threads a shit show btw but whatever. Now, throughout history and mainly before the internet bestiality was actually mildly accepted, at least through the fuck ton of articles I've seen/read. Although such an act was taboo bestiality itself as an act didn't really reach wide spread public condemnation till the Mr Hands incident as that's when the news started piling on. I am a marine biologist so I'm not too familiar with other species but, one of the fields I'm studying, the behavioral habits of bottlenose dolphins seems to link some valid points you address. Namely that dolphins, much like humans can in a sense consent and show trust. A dolphin in it's natural habitat will NOT let you simply fuck it, in fact there's a higher chance that if you get caught in the middle of a male pod without a female you'll be their target for a literal mass rape and you'll probably drown in the process. Male dolphins are among those who are most open to the act. Some require a few hours of interaction to open up and present, some will just swim up and roll over or just start humping you. If you don't comply with their needs that's when they may try to force you via pulling you out into deeper water or just simply swim away frustrated. Dolphins in captivity or more infamous of this as many are sexually depraved to the point where if they are not satisfied manually will either not comply to orders at all or once again attempt to rape.
Females on the other hand are far more docile and friendly. Females under pretty much all documented cases won't let you breed with them for quite a bit. Once again that's when interaction comes into play. Female dolphins are the ones who are typically the target of mass rape in the pod of males and normally they are abused most of their lives and used for sexual relief by the other males. This in turn makes them extremely shy of sexual contact.
Ooooooh me likey, ESPECIALLY when you consider sexual intercourse as one of the fundamental behaviours that correlates nearly all life on earth
Lucas Kelly
...
Jose Gomez
>Lol alien concept >aliens with cultural norms and morals >literal aliens in hypothetical >implication being that humans are to dogs when compared to the hypothetical aliens with their fetch morality Dumb faggot.
>Why do you think human acculturation is so necessary to make sexual decisions which can be considered legitimate self-expression Why do you belt out so many non-sequiturs?
William Lopez
I have actually seen my neutered dog fuck and tie with my bitch when she is in heat. He still responds to the heat pheremones. His dick is small, but it still works.
