Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Those of you who've seen my thread about incest are probably not shocked by this one. Everyone else... bear with me for a sec...

From a progressive stand point... can you try givving me reasons for why a person shouldn't be allowed to do what's described in the title?
Once you get rid of the "Ewww!" factor and "Well, the bible says..." factor... Full grown functioning adult that is absolutely "normal" otherwise. And uses all the necessary protection (not talking about a leash here).
From a progressive point of view... is there a reason why this person shouldn't be accepted by the society? Not ridiculed at work or worse - fired for being open about such sexual preferences? I made it a "passive" position on purpose to avoid pets rights violation argument to make it a bit more difficult.

And before you ask - no I don't have a dog. I have a cat but she wasn't interested.

Because dolphin dick is better.

Dogs can't say yes /thread

In this hypothetical case... Is your dog hot?

Originally posted by SamZED
Those of you who've seen my thread about incest are probably not shocked by this one. Everyone else... bear with me for a sec...

From a progressive stand point... can you try givving me reasons for why a person shouldn't be allowed to do what's described in the title?
Once you get rid of the "Ewww!" factor and "Well, the bible says..." factor... Full grown functioning adult that is absolutely "normal" otherwise. And uses all the necessary protection (not talking about a leash here).
From a progressive point of view... is there a reason why this person shouldn't be accepted by the society? Not ridiculed at work or worse - fired for being open about such sexual preferences? I made it a "passive" position on purpose to avoid pets rights violation argument to make it a bit more difficult.

And before you ask - no I don't have a dog. I have a cat but she wasn't interested.

Lol if we want to look at this from a lunatics point of view(progressives) then well bro no you can't bang your dog nor can it bang you. Cuz of the power dynamics bro. You have too much power over the dog.

Get a life man

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Dogs can't say yes /thread

This.

"If you get rid of all the reasons why it's bad, tell me why it's bad"

You can justify everything like that. Why is raping babies considered bad once you get rid of the 'ew' factor, the Bible and we assume it's a normal adult person who took it in the safest way possible?

Yes, a normal adult... what a contradiction.

Why shouldn't you kill people, why shouldn't you wear people as masks, why can't I cut off my own arm, why can't I walk around naked all the time, why can't I just eat my own shit?

Sanity mostly

Does your cat like to watch is the biggest question.

Straight out of r/morbidquestions

Sam's once again letting us know about his weird Russian kinks. It's obvious he wants to get penetrated by a male dog and is using this thread as a tester.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sam's once again letting us know about his weird Russian kinks. It's obvious he wants to get penetrated by a male dog and is using this thread as a tester. "So uh, just a random question but uh, what breed has the biggest dog wiener?"

Originally posted by One Big Mob
"So uh, just a random question but uh, what breed has the biggest dog wiener?" and

This.

Originally posted by Surtur
You have too much power over the dog.

Case could be made for this, too.

Even if you had never let your dog do this to you, I feel bad for your dog.

.

Originally posted by SamZED
So why shouldn't I let my dog bang me?

Because you're not a sick freak who ****s animals should be the number one answer.

I personally have no desire to have sex with a dog, but I must confess to having an erotic fascination with seeing dogs making love with attractive women. It really gets the blood pumping.

I don't like watching dogs hump each other or human girls. I have watched humans take the knot but it was more a case of curiousity and ammo. It actually kind of grosses me out. Same with that video of the pug eating that girl out that's going around Facebook. One watch is enough.

Some things I just can't beat off to. Gore too, though I'm a huge fan of that. Same with scat porn though I will certainly watch it.

My beat off taste is kind of tame now that I think of it

Ok, so this is a less creepy discussion than I expected. So let me play the devil's advocate here since I started the thread.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Dogs can't say yes /thread
Mute people can't say yes either. There are other ways to display interest. Key point you're not forcing the animal to do anything it doesn't want to.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
"If you get rid of all the reasons why it's bad, tell me why it's bad"

You can justify everything like that. Why is raping babies considered bad once you get rid of the 'ew' factor, the Bible and we assume it's a normal adult person who took it in the safest way possible?

Yes, a normal adult... what a contradiction.

Why shouldn't you kill people, why shouldn't you wear people as masks, why can't I cut off my own arm, why can't I walk around naked all the time, why can't I just eat my own shit?

Sanity mostly
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but all the reasons you listed are pretty terrible and irrelevant tbh.
How many babies tried humping your leg? Killing people is bad because you're violating their right not to be murdered and worn as a mask. Same goes for raping babies. Remove the Ew factor and the Bible fact and you're still left with the fact that you're causing harm (physical or otherwise) to someone.

Meanwhile, this is not the case in the hypothetical scenario I've givven. Which is the purpose of the thread. Considering there's no harm involved, try givving reasons as to why this isn't ok from the progressive point of view. The "live and let live" kind of deal.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sam's once again letting us know about his weird Russian kinks. It's obvious he wants to get penetrated by a male dog and is using this thread as a tester.
Dude, why would I need tests, getting penetrated by a male dog is the citizenship requirement here. Just fishing to see how westerners react to our more progressive world view.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Hadn't read these responses but pretty much that's it.

Wtf is up with Samzed though? You'd think he'd be playing the new Spiderman game instead of trying to justify ****ing his dog.
I would if I had it. Also, the "no fall damage" ruins the experience for me.

Originally posted by DarthPlaguis12
Get a life man No.
Originally posted by Surtur
You have too much power over the dog.
So far this is the best answer.

But dog's intellect is comparable to children. Are you saying it's ok to **** them if 'they show interest'?

Just typing that made me die a little inside, pal.

Samzed replied to everyone's objections but mine and mine was the only one that mattered ahah

https://media1.tenor.com/images/9cfa4c55ac5ab032bbd5fe8ed9963d9d/tenor.gif

Originally posted by SamZED
Ok, so this is a less creepy discussion than I expected. So let me play the devil's advocate here since I started the thread.


Mute people can't say yes either. There are other ways to display interest. Key point you're not forcing the animal to do anything it doesn't want to.


I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but all the reasons you listed are pretty terrible and irrelevant tbh.
How many babies tried humping your leg? Killing people is bad because you're violating their right not to be murdered and worn as a mask. Same goes for raping babies. Remove the Ew factor and the Bible fact and you're still left with the fact that you're causing harm (physical or otherwise) to someone.

Meanwhile, this is not the case in the hypothetical scenario I've givven. Which is the purpose of the thread. Considering there's no harm involved, try givving reasons as to why this isn't ok from the progressive point of view. The "live and let live" kind of deal. That's the point though, that you can move the goalposts for anything in life to make it seem less than what it is. The reasons you took away are pretty significant too. Mainly assuming the person is normal and the 'ew' factor. Just set that aside, just take the dog knot, it's ok as long as you don't think it's ewwy.

A baby sucks anything that goes near its mouth. And murdering and raping people is apparently done under the pretense that you're a normal adult who's doing it in the safest way possible. Lube and smooth that baby up for landing. Drug or quickly murder that person.
But that's following the same exact reason. Maybe that person didn't deserve to live in your eyes? Maybe they were just a waste? Maybe that baby was seducing you and wanted it (I shit you not there's videos on pedophiles who think every boy wants to get plowed). No matter what sick twisted reasons you can come up with, if you simply ignore the worst reasons not to do it, you can justify doing it.

If you ignore the pain that goes away, tell me what's the harm? You're not chopping off an arm or anything and hindering them for life. What's wrong with chopping off an arm, they wanted to become left handed anyway. What's wrong with shitting in someone's food? Set aside the ew factor and it's not like you're hurting them.

Just because you think you can set aside some things, that doesn't make it cool. You could go kill every crackhead in your city, but it doesn't mean it's a great idea. Just set aside the fact that you're deleting people and tell me why it's bad... they're bad too!



You're taking advantage of your dog mostly. Dogs don't fuk for fun like humans, they **** out of instinct. Tricking your dog into going in there is going to likely require some work as well. The dog didn't decide to roll over and put it in your ass. Dogs don't just do shit like that on command. You did or are doing something sick to get to that point.




"Just set aside the ew factor"

No. That's a pretty huge factor and a pretty flimsy reason, like I said above. That's your justification, not a sane person's. You know any sane men that get penetrated by dogs? You hang out with anyone that goes "Yeah I'm just going to grab some milk from the store, maybe grab a 6 pack and watch the game later. You guys want to head over before Rover sticks his cock in my ass later tonight? I told him 'not deep' last time, and he went knot deep! What a weekend that was!"

Even ignoring the ew factor you're a weird fuk that preys on dogs. Why would you expect to be accepted into society when you can't even get a guy to put it in your ass and have to prey on dogs instead?


And if you buy a dog to train it to fuk you and intend to pretend it's normal, I hope you'd be upfront with the people you're getting the dog from.


Among other things.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
But dog's intellect is comparable to children. Are you saying it's ok to **** them if 'they show interest'?

Just typing that made me die a little inside, pal.

Plus they're dogs. How the 'F can you really know what their body language is saying?

They aren't human beings, after all. Even a dog humping my leg isn't a proposal to stick it in him.

umm...you people are weird

Yeah. Everyone's covered this pretty well. I'm glad to know KMC is a lot of things, but we aren't animal rapists.

And yeah, the mute person analogy doesnt work. The issue isn't just the ability to communicate but the ability to reason. Without strong mental agency, the dog can't consent, especially not to someone with so much power over it. An able-bodied, pass out drunk human can't consent for basically the same reason. Think of your dog as a falling over drunk person at a party. Don't do it, even if they wag their tail.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I personally have no desire to have sex with a dog, but I must confess to having an erotic fascination with seeing dogs making love with attractive women. It really gets the blood pumping. Underrated post though.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
My beat off taste is kind of tame now that I think of it


...

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Gore too, though I'm a huge fan of that. Same with scat porn though I will certainly watch it.


https://i.imgur.com/GwXAWv8.gif








We have far far different definitions of what "tame taste" means.


https://i.imgur.com/RBtQdjA.gif

So the whole thing is gross, but beyond the "ewe" factor there actually wouldn't be anything wrong with it. Dogs are instinctual and live for the approval of their masters so if the dog is willing... who cares. It's not like consent is all that huge of a deal to dogs anyway and there are several billion instances of legs getting humped to back that up lol

Dogs are incapable of giving consent so it would be rape.

You deserve the rope, because this thread is nothing more then a thinly veiled attempt to criticize some other sexual dynamic you morally disapprove of, just like how homophobes always conspicuously start bringing up pedophilia when they want to attack homosexuality.
Originally posted by darthgoober
So the whole thing is gross, but beyond the "ewe" factor there actually wouldn't be anything wrong with it. Dogs are instinctual and live for the approval of their masters so if the dog is willing... who cares. It's not like consent is all that huge of a deal to dogs anyway and there are several billion instances of legs getting humped to back that up lol Dogs are willing to do dog things like play catch or roll over, they will not "allow" you to shove a baton up their ass, you ****ing clown.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Dogs are incapable of giving consent so it would be rape.

Russians deserve to be nuked.
Dogs are willing to do dog things like play catch or roll over, they will not "allow" you to shove a baton up their ass, you ****ing moron.
They also can't consent to medical procedures so taking them to the vet for things like getting fixed is always assault...

Also, in this thread the premise is whether or not it's ok for a master to let the do ban HIM, not vice versa

Originally posted by dadudemon
...




https://i.imgur.com/GwXAWv8.gif








We have far far different definitions of what "tame taste" means.


https://i.imgur.com/RBtQdjA.gif
Watching and beating off are two different things.

Originally posted by darthgoober
They also can't consent to medical procedures Yes retard, that's why we only take animals to the vet when they're potentially in danger, not because we want to ejaculate on their faces.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Yes retard, that's why we only take animals to the vet when they're potentially in danger, not because we want to ejaculate on their faces.
You seem to have a lot of rage in you... you should calm down before you give yourself an ulcer.

Also we take them to get fixed...

Originally posted by darthgoober
You seem to have a lot of rage in you... you should calm down before you give yourself an ulcer.I'm black, I'm always angry.

Again, health issue.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I'm black, I'm always angry.
Racist...

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Again, health issue.
No it's not, it's about population control. Do it to a human without consent claiming it's for health reasons and it's assault. In the scenario present the animal is totally willing to go along with the game, the dog is the "top" not the "bottom".

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You deserve the rope, because this thread is nothing more then a thinly veiled attempt to criticize some other sexual dynamic you morally disapprove of, just like how homophobes always conspicuously start bringing up pedophilia when they want to attack homosexuality.

That was not the purpose of the thread at all and i'd appreciate if you didn't put words into my mouth. The purpose was to try and discuss an uncomfortable and silly subject hoping it would raise some interesting points like the ones posted above and without having to endure others' self righteous outrage. Points like whether you forcefully removing your dog's balls is a lot worse (from its perspective) than letting it have its way with your leg. Once again for the record, nobody here is actually banging dogs (as far as I know) or making some sneaky attempts at trying to justify homophobia, so chill.

Originally posted by Bentley
Samzed replied to everyone's objections but mine and mine was the only one that mattered ahah
Sigh.. yes.

I'm banging dogs and trying to justify homophobia.

...




Aside from NameBro nobody here is actually banging dogs or making attempts at trying to justify homophobia...

What's the biggest breed you think you could handle in your ass Sam?

Originally posted by SamZED
Aside from NameBro nobody here is actually banging dogs

What makes you so sure?

You can't be certain of anything; you haven't even met any of us irl. And even if you did, you still wouldn't know for sure. Just saying.



Anyway, this wiki link def belongs here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory

Originally posted by darthgoober
So the whole thing is gross, but beyond the "ewe" factor there actually wouldn't be anything wrong with it. Dogs are instinctual and live for the approval of their masters so if the dog is willing... who cares. It's not like consent is all that huge of a deal to dogs anyway and there are several billion instances of legs getting humped to back that up lol

Originally posted by darthgoober
They also can't consent to medical procedures so taking them to the vet for things like getting fixed is always assault...

Also, in this thread the premise is whether or not it's ok for a master to let the do ban HIM, not vice versa

https://media.giphy.com/media/TdmTcdoN3egaQ/giphy.gif

Even though it can't consent to going to the vet it's not the same. Legally you need to take it in to get shots. Also if the dog is sick and needs a vet and you neglect it that is a form of abuse in itself.

Taking it to the vet isn't assaulting it. Raping it is assaulting it.

One wonders what Wishbone would say.

wsN8bFeKNeI

Originally posted by Robtard
https://media.giphy.com/media/TdmTcdoN3egaQ/giphy.gif It's goober we're talking about

Originally posted by darthgoober
Racist...


No it's not, it's about population control. Do it to a human without consent claiming it's for health reasons and it's assault. In the scenario present the animal is totally willing to go along with the game, the dog is the "top" not the "bottom".
I appreciate devil's advocacy as much as the next guy, but you've made two errors here. Even if neutering was wrong, that doesn't somehow make the rape right. They are unrelated issues bro.

Additionally, the position you take during sex is completely irrelevant. If Kevin Spacey was letting 14 year boys violently jackhammer him to climax, it's still rape. Asia Argento deepthroating and getting penetrated doesn't make Jimmy Bennet any less assaulted.

The dog has no idea what is happening. The owner does, and all responsibility rests on them.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
It's goober we're talking about

yeah, but still....

Trying to rationalize such an abhorrent act by comparing it to a medical procedure is phucken retarded. Apparently a few people on here cannot judge intent or results with a rational mind...

Originally posted by Surtur
Even though it can't consent to going to the vet it's not the same. Legally you need to take it in to get shots. Also if the dog is sick and needs a vet and you neglect it that is a form of abuse in itself.

Taking it to the vet isn't assaulting it. Raping it is assaulting it.
I'd say taking their nuts definitely constitutes assault if we're granting them the same rights as people when it comes to "consent".

Originally posted by StyleTime
I appreciate devil's advocacy as much as the next guy, but you've made two errors here. Even if neutering was wrong, that doesn't somehow make the rape right. They are unrelated issues bro.

Additionally, the position you take during sex is completely irrelevant. If Kevin Spacey was letting 14 year boys violently jackhammer him to climax, it's still rape. Asia Argento deepthroating and getting penetrated doesn't make Jimmy Bennet any less assaulted.

The dog has no idea what is happening. The owner does, and all responsibility rests on them.
The dog does know what's happening, they know what they're doing when they're humping something. Do you really believe that if a dog runs up an starts to hump a persons leg and the person doesn't stop them that the person is guilty of sexually assaulting the dog? We're not talking about children, we're talking about an animal. You don't OWN a child, you're simply responsible for it. On the other hand, we DO own our pets. We don't ask animals if they feel like getting pregnant either, we artificially inseminate them and then take their offspring away all the time without asking how they feel about it. Animals don't have the same kinds of rights as humans, it's as simple as that. The dog isn't being treated cruelly by being allowed to get his rocks off with his master. As far as the dog is concerned he got to have sex AND make his master really happy... that's a great day for a dog.

I'm happy with the way this thread's going so far.

Reminds of the old Bill Burr's bit: "We have such a crazy relationship with cows: you can nurse from it, eat it, tip it over when it's sleeping, but if you fuk it you're going to jail." Except in this case you're not actually fuking anyone.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'd say taking their nuts definitely constitutes assault if we're granting them the same rights as people when it comes to "consent".

If you think taking their nuts is wrong, then you should be argue not to take their nuts.

"We take their nuts so we should add rape on top of that" isn't a good argument.
Originally posted by darthgoober

The dog does know what's happening, they know what they're doing when they're humping something. Do you really believe that if a dog runs up an starts to hump a persons leg and the person doesn't stop them that the person is guilty of sexually assaulting the dog? We're not talking about children, we're talking about an animal. You don't OWN a child, you're simply responsible for it. On the other hand, we DO own our pets. We don't ask animals if they feel like getting pregnant either, we artificially inseminate them and then take their offspring away all the time without asking how they feel about it. Animals don't have the same kinds of rights as humans, it's as simple as that. The dog isn't being treated cruelly by being allowed to get his rocks off with his master. As far as the dog is concerned he got to have sex AND make his master really happy... that's a great day for a dog.
No, they don't know what they're doing. That is why they are humping your leg and not reaching for your genitals. They are executing an evolutionary script without any understanding of it whatsoever.

You're also inadvertently highlighting a hugely significant power difference. The fact that you own the pet says an awful lot bro. That's not more reason **** it. It's less reason to. Additionally, you're bringing up the issue of animals rights here, and yes, it is in fact illegal to **** your dog in most states. They don't share all rights in common with humans, but they do share the right not to be raped by humans...

On the breeding point, again, different issue. Issue B being possibly wrong doesn't somehow make Issue A correct.

Originally posted by StyleTime
If you think taking their nuts is wrong, then you should be argue not to take their nuts.

"We take their nuts so we should add rape on top of that" isn't a good argument.

Hypocrisy is a relevant topic because laws are, in large part, based upon precedent.

Originally posted by StyleTime
No, they don't know what they're doing. That is why they are humping your leg and not reaching for your genitals. They are executing an evolutionary script without any understanding of it whatsoever.

You're also inadvertently highlighting a hugely significant power difference. The fact that you own the pet says an awful lot bro. That's not more reason **** it. It's less reason to. Additionally, you're bringing up the issue of animals rights here, and yes, it is in fact illegal to **** your dog in most states. They don't share all rights in common with humans, but they do share the right not to be raped by humans...

On the breeding point, again, different issue. Issue B being possibly wrong doesn't somehow make Issue A correct.
They know they're gratifying themselves sexually and that they really WANT to do it. They're not picky about how they get that release, which is why it shouldn't be an issue.

If you're going to get hung up on current legalities, you should stop throwing the word "rape" around because it doesn't apply to animals in a legal sense. Even if you get caught f*cking an animal in the ass that's "screaming" and trying to get away, you don't get charged with rape even if bestiality is a crime.

This discussion isn't about what IS currently recognized by the law, it's about why the current standard is what it is. Ergo, if there is a hypocritical standard at play in regards to issues A and B, that standard is relevant to the discussion as to whether or not Issue A should be considered a big deal. The question in play is "Why shouldn't I let my dog bang me" and the only real reasons are "Because it's against the law in most places", "Religion", and "It's gross". And since there's supposed to be separation of church and state and we don't outlaw stuff just because of the subjective opinion of "grossness", it shouldn't be a crime or even anyone else's business since "consent" from animals is never otherwise considered to be an issue in our legal system. The theoretical animal we're talking about isn't being physically hurt, neglected, or "shamed". It's not really suffering in any way and is actually doing something that it wants to do... making a big fuss about it is ridiculous.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Hypocrisy is a relevant topic because laws are, in large part, based upon precedent.
In some instances where it's logical to do so, I'd agree. This isn't that. Even if we decided neutering your dog is wrong, that only means we should also make that illegal. Not legalize smashing its booty.
Originally posted by darthgoober
They know they're gratifying themselves sexually and that they really WANT to do it. They're not picky about how they get that release, which is why it shouldn't be an issue.

If you're going to get hung up on current legalities, you should stop throwing the word "rape" around because it doesn't apply to animals in a legal sense. Even if you get caught f*cking an animal in the ass that's "screaming" and trying to get away, you don't get charged with rape even if bestiality is a crime.

This discussion isn't about what IS currently recognized by the law, it's about why the current standard is what it is. Ergo, if there is a hypocritical standard at play in regards to issues A and B, that standard is relevant to the discussion as to whether or not Issue A should be considered a big deal. The question in play is "Why shouldn't I let my dog bang me" and the only real reasons are "Because it's against the law in most places", "Religion", and "It's gross". And since there's supposed to be separation of church and state and we don't outlaw stuff just because of the subjective opinion of "grossness", it shouldn't be a crime or even anyone else's business since "consent" from animals is never otherwise considered to be an issue in our legal system. The theoretical animal we're talking about isn't being physically hurt, neglected, or "shamed". It's not really suffering in any way and is actually doing something that it wants to do... making a big fuss about it is ridiculous.
Again, enjoyment isn't necessarily relevant. It's about their ability to actually consent. A 12 year old can enjoy sex and even say "yes" in the moment. Doesn't mean the 34 year old didn't assault the kid. How do you propose to even untangle oneself from the power dynamic literally bred into dogs?

I only brought up the law because you said dogs don't have the same rights as us. I'm pointing out that that isn't actually true across the board.

Originally posted by StyleTime
In some instances where it's logical to do so, I'd agree. This isn't that. Even if we decided neutering your dog is wrong, that only means we should also make that illegal. Not legalize smashing its booty.
I disagree, I believe this is that. Especially in discussions involving the opposing views of two specific people such as you and I. We have established that you believe animals have the same kinds of rights of consent as humans, so do you personally believe that getting an animal fixed or(more relevantly) artificially inseminated without their consent is wrong? I've seen you post, you seem to be both intelligent and well spoken, if there are major differences then you should be able to articulate them.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Again, enjoyment isn't necessarily relevant. It's about their ability to actually consent. A 12 year old can enjoy sex and even say "yes" in the moment. Doesn't mean a the 34 year old didn't assault the kid. How do you propose to even untangle oneself from the power dynamic literally bred into them?

I only brought up the law because you said dogs don't have the same rights as us. I'm pointing out that that isn't actually true across the board.

It is relevant for whether or not the dog's "rights" are being violated. Dog's will have sex with all kinds of shit, they don't have the same kind of lingering issues about it that humans do. While some breeds may have a potential IQ approaching that of a young child their minds still function in fundamentally different ways than a human's. When they have have reached adulthood and have achieved an IQ of a young child... that's as sexually mature as they're ever going to get. If they enjoy it while it's happening, they're not going to wake up with night terrors about it 5 years down the road. If they want to do it in the moment, that's consent for them. If the animals's not actually suffering physically or at least in his own mind, then no real harm is befalling him. So anyone objecting isn't actually objecting about harm to the dog, but rather how the interaction makes THEM feel. It's no different than people who want to ban stuff like porn or stripping even when those directly involved are totally cool with it.

Originally posted by One Big Mob

You're taking advantage of your dog mostly. Dogs don't fuk for fun like humans, they **** out of instinct. Tricking your dog into going in there is going to likely require some work as well. The dog didn't decide to roll over and put it in your ass. Dogs don't just do shit like that on command. You did or are doing something sick to get to that point.


Originally posted by One Big Mob
"Just set aside the ew factor"

No. That's a pretty huge factor and a pretty flimsy reason, like I said above.

^ both of these.

The consent issue isn't that we should give dogs the same right and level of consent that we recognize humans possess. Probably the best comparison for this thread is that we think it's OK to breed dogs without ever obtaining consent in the same way we do with humans. Also, we forcibly confine them, put them through surgery as mentioned, etc.

But so far all the pro-bestiality devils advocates in this thread are conflating a dog humping your leg and a dog penetrating your butt as if they're the same act, and they're obviously not. If dogs were often instinctively compelled to try and anally penetrate their owners then this thread would be a whole different kettle. The implication otherwise in this scenario is that the dog has been trained to f*ck you when you put your ass in the air, and that training is where the consent issue is buried, and where this scenario looks like needless cruelty to animals.

Needless is the key word. We do make societal permissions for some acts that animals would likely never consent to, even if they could, because it's useful to us and, in many cases, to the pets (see: neutering your dog). But because there's no driving need for dog f*cking, the laws against bestiality remain.

Originally posted by Smurph
^ both of these.

The consent issue isn't that we should give dogs the same right and level of consent that we recognize humans possess. Probably the best comparison for this thread is that we think it's OK to breed dogs without ever obtaining consent in the same way we do with humans. Also, we forcibly confine them, put them through surgery as mentioned, etc.

But so far all the pro-bestiality devils advocates in this thread are conflating a dog humping your leg and a dog penetrating your butt as if they're the same act, and they're obviously not. If dogs were often instinctively compelled to try and anally penetrate their owners then this thread would be a whole different kettle. The implication otherwise in this scenario is that the dog has been trained to f*ck you when you put your ass in the air, and that training is where the consent issue is buried, and where this scenario looks like needless cruelty to animals.

Needless is the key word. We do make societal permissions for some acts that animals would likely never consent to, even if they could, because it's useful to us and, in many cases, to the pets (see: neutering your dog). But because there's no driving need for dog f*cking, the laws against bestiality remain.
But to the dog, leg humping and ass f*cking pretty much IS the same act. Either way the dog is trying to satisfy biology, if he doesn't care where he satisfies it then why should we? We train dogs to do all kinds of things we don't actually NEED them to do for anything other than bring enjoyment to people all the time. The dog isn't being anymore hurt by banging his master than he is being told to ride a bike at a circus or even just to "roll over". And if the dog isn't actually being hurt in any way, then other people's distaste for the act shouldn't be enough to outlaw it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Even though it can't consent to going to the vet it's not the same. Legally you need to take it in to get shots. Also if the dog is sick and needs a vet and you neglect it that is a form of abuse in itself.

Taking it to the vet isn't assaulting it. Raping it is assaulting it.

^ See, even Surt can tell the difference between taking your dog to get shots (for its own good) against its will and ass-raping your dog.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
It's goober we're talking about

While I rarely agree with goober, he's not a bad person. Really don't get his weird angle here though.

I think his angle here is pretty straightforward.

He loves dog cock.

Imagine the claws getting purchase on him as the dog gets into action.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ See, even Surt can tell the difference between taking your dog to get shots (for its own good) against its will and ass-raping your dog.
Hey we're not talking about a human as the top, we're talking about a human as a bottom. The dog is gratifying itself, the master is simply allowing himself to serve as the vessel.

Originally posted by Robtard
While I rarely agree with goober, he's not a bad person. Really don't get his weird angle here though.
Simple, it's all about legislating taste, which I'm whole totally against.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Hey we're not talking about a human as the top, we're talking about a human as a bottom. The dog is gratifying itself, the master is simply allowing himself to serve as the vessel.


Simple, it's all about legislating taste, which I'm whole totally against.

So by that rational a woman can't rape a man?

We're not about bestiality here... I mean, if you're pro animal-****ing, just say so. I'm personally happy it's illegal in most every state; if not every state by now. Even the hick Red states finally jumped on board it seems.

Originally posted by Robtard
So by that rational a woman can't rape a man?

We're not about bestiality here... I mean, if you're pro animal-****ing, just say so. I'm personally happy it's illegal in most every state; if not every state by now. Even the hick Red states finally jumped on board it seems.
Of course women can rape men. But if a woman simply presents to a guy and he jumps on her and starts pounding away because he's horny, he can't really claim rape can he? If a dog starts humping your leg and for whatever reason you chose not to stop him till he's done, have you sexually assaulted him?

It's not that I'm pro animal f*cking it's that I'm against laws that solely exist to legislate taste. I'm not actually pro... whatever that thing is called where a chick lets a whole bunch of guys cum all over her face is called... either, cause I think it's gross as all get out, but I'm against laws forbidding it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Of course women can rape men. But if a woman simply presents to a guy and he jumps on her and starts pounding away because he's horny, he can't really claim rape can he? If a dog starts humping your leg and for whatever reason you chose not to stop him till he's done, have you sexually assaulted him?

It's not that I'm pro animal f*cking it's that I'm against laws that solely exist to legislate taste. I'm not actually pro... whatever that thing is called where a chick lets a whole bunch of guys cum all over her face is called... either, cause I think it's gross as all get out, but I'm against laws forbidding it.

Your argument was essentially that if the male dog is excited, then it's consenting to the sex. It's not uncommon for men who are raped to also have an erection.

No one is mixing anti animal ****ing with other laws. We're strictly talking about bestiality here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your argument was essentially that if the male dog is excited, then it's consenting to the sex. It's not uncommon for men who are raped to also have an erection.

No one is mixing anti animal ****ing with other laws. We're strictly talking about bestiality here.
No my argument is that if a dog wants to hump(which the pretty much always do when they have an erection) then it's consent. At least as much consent as a dog ever gives. If your dog wants to f*ck another dog and you let him that's fine. If it wants to f*ck a pillow or your leg and you let it that's all cool. If it wants to do any of those things and you stop it and punish it to discourage such behavior it's no problem... but God forbid someone channel that action into something that the master also takes pleasure from... That's a BS hypocritical standard that exists only because it grosses most people out. And I believe that it RIGHTLY grosses most people out because... ewe, Ewe, EWE... but I don't believe in legislating taste. I'm of the firm opinion that the government needs to stay the Hell out of people's sex lives unless it's absolutely necessary.

No we're not talking strictly about bestiality, we're talking about whether or not bestiality should actually be any kind of public issue. Therefore, comparable or tangent topics are relevant to the discussion if they demonstrate hypocrisy.

Dog's are instinct driven, so saying "well, he had a hardon" is {repeat} little more than saying men can't get raped if they have an erection.

Like children, it's up to the adult to draw the line on what is acceptable and what is not. Imo, ****ing a dog is not acceptable. Honestly, you're just giving credence to Galan's comment at this point.

Well I'm talking bout bestiality, I mean, look at the subject title.

Originally posted by darthgoober
No my argument is that if a dog wants to hump(which the pretty much always do when they have an erection) then it's consent. At least as much consent as a dog ever gives. If your dog wants to f*ck another dog and you let him that's fine. If it wants to f*ck a pillow or your leg and you let it that's all cool. If it wants to do any of those things and you stop it and punish it to discourage such behavior it's no problem... but God forbid someone channel that action into something that the master also takes pleasure from... That's a BS hypocritical standard that exists only because it grosses most people out. And I believe that it RIGHTLY grosses most people out because... ewe, Ewe, EWE... but I don't believe in legislating taste. I'm of the firm opinion that the government needs to stay the Hell out of people's sex lives unless it's absolutely necessary.

No we're not talking strictly about bestiality, we're talking about whether or not bestiality should actually be any kind of public issue. Therefore, comparable or tangent topics are relevant to the discussion if they demonstrate hypocrisy.

T55ArHjeR1c

^A dog when it see's you come into a room.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dog's are instinct driven, so saying "well, he had a hardon" is {repeat} little more than saying men can't get raped if they have an erection.

Like children, it's up to the adult to draw the line on what is acceptable and what is not. Imo, ****ing a dog is not acceptable. Honestly, you're just giving credence to Galan's comment at this point.

Well I'm talking bout bestiality, I mean, look at the subject title.
Do dogs and humans think in fundamentally different ways? If so, then example A doesn't equate to example B.

Because you think it's gross, not because the dog actually suffers from it.

Look at more than the subject title, look at the OP.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Do dogs and humans think in fundamentally different ways? If so, then example A doesn't equate to example B.

Because you think it's gross, not because the dog actually suffers from it.

Look at more than the subject title, look at the OP.

You just kinda killed your own reasoning then.

So if "not suffering" is now the key element, then having sex with a comatose person who feels nothing, sees nothing and remembers nothing of the incident is okay too, using that reasoning. I disagree btw, that's rape.

Okay, did again. It's still about bestiality and a person's love of dog cocks.

Originally posted by Robtard
You just kinda killed your own reasoning then.

So if "not suffering" is now the key element, then having sex with a comatose person who feels nothing, sees nothing and remembers nothing of the incident is okay too, using that reasoning. I disagree btw, that's rape.

Okay, did again. It's still about bestiality and a person's love of dog cocks.

No it doesn't. My reasoning has always been that the dog doesn't mind and the human doesn't mind, so it shouldn't be a public issue.

"Suffering" is a key element in regards to animal cruelty and cruelty is basically the only line we as a society draws in regards to what we do to or with our animals. Human's have more rights than animals across the board. That's why we're allowed to fix, impregnate, or abort the offspring of animals without their consent but can't do so to humans. An animal's master has the final say in regards to his animal's basic sexual and/or reproductive rights, not the animal itself. This is the standard we've already adopted in our society.

Yes it is about bestiality. Specifically, why it should be considered an issue. By my contending that it shouldn't, hypocrisy is a relevant argument in regards to the reasons why people think it should. Because if they're selectively applying standards only to something they have a distaste for, it demonstrates that personal taste is the real issue at hand. It's not about how the dog feels, it's about how people who aren't into it feel about the thought of it.

I mean, you're basically unintentionally taking lines right out of NAMBLA's playbook(saw if decades ago on Povich). 'The boy-child doesn't mind and is giving consent, so what's wrong?' and I know you're not a pedo-enabler. When the facts remain, as the adult, it's up to the adult to say "no".

Similar can be said in regards to children. A parent and/or guardian can force their child to take vaccines, medications, have an operation etc, all against the screaming child's will. Because the parent is responsible for the child's well being, yet their are societal limits and for a good reason.

Not sure how a human ****ing a dog is 'good' for the dog though? If the answer is "well, the dog seems happy ****ing a human", then see above.

You just gave Sam his next thread idea.

I mean, you could beat the shit out of your dog and then lock it in the trunk of your car all day... It would still be happy to see you the next morning.

Originally posted by Robtard
I mean, you're basically taking lines right out of NAMBLA's playbook(saw if decades ago on Povich). 'The boy-child doesn't mind and is giving consent, so what's wrong?' and I know you're not a pedo-enabler. As the adult, it's up to the adult to say "no".

Similar can be said in regards to children. A parent and/or guardian can force their child to take vaccines, medications, have an operation etc, all against the screaming child's will. Because the parent is responsible for the child's well being.

Not sure how a human ****ing a dog is 'good' for the dog though? If the answer is "well, the dog seems happy ****ing a human", then see above.

You are again conflating the human mind and mind of a dog. Even with that aside, you're also conflating a being who's still maturing and a being that's considered to be fully mature.

No similar can't really be said about children. Parents aren't allowed to have their children "fixed", they're not allowed to force their child to get pregnant, they're not allowed to force their child to have an abortion. Parents don't "own" children in our society, people do however "own" animals. Therefore the rights of a child and the rights of a dog aren't actually comparable.

The dog would receive whatever level of satisfaction/release they feel and yes, it would also enjoy the fact that it got the approval of it's master. How is a dog riding a bicycle for a crowd or even being told to "roll over" actually "good" for the dog?

Originally posted by One Big Mob
You just gave Sam his next thread idea.

Oh gawd no

Originally posted by Galan007
I mean, you could beat the shit out of your dog and then lock it in the trunk of your car all day... It would still be happy to see you the next morning.
Yes such behavior would actually be harming the animal, letting a dog f*ck you doesn't.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yes such behavior would actually be harming the animal, letting a dog f*ck you doesn't.

But how do you know this? What if the human gives the dog a disease?

Originally posted by Robtard
But how do you know this? What if the human gives the dog a disease?
Because such was not expressed in the OP, which is the specific scenario I'm debating. What's more, if avoiding possible species jumping diseases is the concern, than no one should be allowed to have animals anyway.

*Edit*
And EVEN more, we're moving into an era where people are decriminalizing transmitting STDs like HIV/AIDS by not warning the other party because those diseases aren't considered to be certain death. While I'm firmly against that policy, it does seem that anyone who'd approve of it would be hard pressed to make the case about protecting an animal is such a case.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Because such was not expressed in the OP, which is the specific scenario I'm debating.

What's more, if avoiding possible species jumping diseases is the concern, than no one should be allowed to have animals anyway.

"And uses all the necessary protection" not sure what SamZ is talking about in regarding letting a dog **** him up his ass? What protection is this he speaks of?

You shouldn't be conflating keeping an animal as a pet with keeping an animal as a sex slave. Obviously there's a much higher chance of disease transmission with sexual penetration than was cuddling/petting.

Originally posted by Robtard
"And uses all the necessary protection" not sure what SamZ is talking about in regarding letting a dog **** him up his ass? What protection is this he speaks of?

You shouldn't be conflating keeping an animal as a pet with keeping an animal as a sex slave. Obviously there's a much higher chance of disease transmission with sexual penetration than was cuddling/petting.

I don't know, maybe some kind of "doggie condom" or a variant on a female condom that goes in the ass lol

An animal is a slave to his master though. It gets no real say in anything, including it's sex life. Hell, lots of people make money using their animals as "studs".

So it's safe to say you can't actually keep that dog safe from disease.

Not entirely true. Animals have some "rights". If you don't believe me, punch and kick your dog viciously in front of a police station, you'll get arrested and charged with animal abuse. Same goes with your dog cornholing you.

edit: We don't even have to go that far/extreme, you can be fined for not properly vaccination your dog; repeat offenses can lead to the animal being taken away

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's safe to say you can't actually keep that dog safe from disease.

Not entirely true. Animals have some "rights". If you don't believe me, punch and kick your dog viciously in front of a police station, you'll get arrested and charged with animal abuse. Same goes with your dog cornholing you.

edit: We don't even have to go that far/extreme, you can be fined for not properly vaccination your dog; repeat offenses can lead to the animal being taken away
Yes because the dog is actually harmed. But letting the dog have sex with you isn't harming it. If directing it's sexual urges constitutes harm, than we need to outlaw dog breeders and only allow for it to happen naturally.

And proper vaccination constitutes a public health issue because you dog can infect other dogs.

I don't know if you notice, but all of your arguments consist of comparing situations where there's actual harm of some kind with a situation where no kind of harm actually happens. But that's the fundamental difference in this scenario, there's no harm being done. That being the case everybody else needs to mind their own damn business.

Well, well, well, I'm not a fan of dog breeders by and large, service animals are one thing, the boutique crossbreed or inbreeding of "pure breeds" is a bad thing imo. Look how many perfectly good dogs that need adoptions, but they're not getting homes because someone wants to pay $5,000.00 for a "pure breed" whose mother and father were 1st siblings.

And unprotected inter-species sex doesn't constitute as a public health issue? Explain that one.

That's not true at all. Not getting a dog a vaccine doesn't automatically cause harm, there's just potential for. Just like Sam's ass ****ings with a dog. So we vac our dogs and we outlaw dog sex as a society.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, well, well, I'm not a fan of dog breeders by and large, service animals are one thing, the boutique crossbreed or inbreeding of "pure breeds" is a bad thing imo. Look how many perfectly good dogs that need adoptions, but they're not getting homes because someone wants to pay $5,000.00 for a "pure breed" whose mother and father were 1st siblings.

And unprotected inter-species sex doesn't constitute as a public health issue? Explain that one.

That's not true at all. Not getting a dog a vaccine doesn't automatically cause harm, there's just potential for. Just like Sam's ass ****ings with a dog.

But do you believe that dog breeding(as well as things like getting your dog fixed and other stuff you're not allowed to do to a child) should be illegal?

Nope. It's a private issue between a citizen and his pet. Just as sex between two people isn't a public health issue even though one of them might have a disease.

Yes the potential to affect OTHERS with harm, thus it's a public health issue. But a disease being transmitted between two beings doesn't qualify as such. And notice you say "we vaccinate our dogs", not "we keep our dogs away from each other". In Sam's scenario all the proper precautions are taken, therefor the interaction should be ok.

You're doing your best to conflate breeding animals, vaccinating animals, fixing animals for health and breed reduction purposes with sex. Robtard doth say thee nay.

What's more, forced vaccinations don't actually support the notion of the animals "rights", but rather their lack of rights. You don't HAVE to vaccinate your children because of the potential for bad side effects and such, dog's don't have that level of inherent rights.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're doing your best to conflate breeding animals, vaccinating animals, fixing animals for health and breed reduction purposes with sex. Robtard doth say thee nay.
I'm not conflating anything. When you apply human standards(which is what you're doing in regards to talking about consent), all of those things fall under the headings of sexual and reproductive rights. My point is that dogs don't have those rights. Well other than the vaccination thing, which as I already pointed out isn't actually a right but rather yet another demonstration that dogs/animals lack the same rights as humans when it comes to bodily autonomy.

Yeah, I think you are. This debacle has gone on long enough, so if it helps you sleep, see a person not being allowed to cornhole their dog or whatever also as a "lack of a human right."

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, I think you are. This debacle has gone on long enough, so if it helps you sleep, see a person not being allowed to cornhole their dog or whatever also as a "lack of a human right."
Hey if you want to walk away go right ahead. But in your free time you might consider the fact that you've been arguing in support of legislating sexual behavior for no real reason other than you personally finding it distasteful and ask yourself how doing so is any different than those who want to outlaw homosexuality, oral sex, or sex outside of wedlock. In the scenario presented there's less harm coming to the dog than other things you're perfectly fine with, so you're really arguing solely out of personal disgust for the act itself.

That's simple and has already been stated in the first page of this thread. Aside from rape and/or sexual predatory tactics, two men ****ing, a couple going down on each other orally and sex outside of wedlock are all consensual

Originally posted by Robtard
That's simple and has already been stated in the first page of this thread. Aside from rape and/or sexual predatory tactics, two men ****ing, a couple going down on each other orally and sex outside of wedlock are all consensual
And the only being involved in this scenario that actually has any legal rights in regards to sexual consent and/or bodily autonomy, does so

goober is slaughtering.

Originally posted by darthgoober
And the only being involved in this scenario that actually has any legal rights in regards to sexual consent and/or bodily autonomy, does so

Now you're switching your argument from previous pages.

But you're wrong, as I already noted animals do have 'rights' in a fashion (you keep ignoring this to fit your agenda). Not being anally raped is one of them :0

Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're switching your argument from previous pages.

But you're wrong, as I already noted animals do have 'rights' in a fashion (you keep ignoring this to fit your agenda). Not being anally raped is one of them :0
Who said that animals don't have any rights? I'm only saying that they don't have THESE rights. I fully acknowledge that people aren't allowed to be overly cruel to their animal, but allowing an animal to have sex doesn't qualify as such IMO.

And again, no animal is being anally penetrated in this scenario. I can totally see outlawing banging animals in the ass because there's actual physical harm being done to the animal. But that's not the premise of this thread. What's more, the author of the thread went out of his way to make sure that such a scenario wouldn't be the premise of the discussions here. You keep ignoring it because otherwise you have to come to grips with the fact that you're willing to ban something that harms no one simply because you dislike it.

So not only do you want to rape a drunk chick, but you want to be allowed to have sex with your dog.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Who said that animals don't have any rights? I'm only saying that they don't have THESE rights.

And again, no animal is being anally raped in this scenario. I can totally see outlawing banging animals in the ass because there's actual physical harm being done to the animal. But that's not the premise of this thread. What's more, the author of the thread went out of his way to make sure that such a scenario wouldn't be the premise of the discussions here.

Actually, they do. Rape is abuse and not being abused falls under an animal's rights.

What a weird and almost desperate distinction; like an agenda was trying to be pushed. So you agree that it's rape/abuse if the animal is penetrated... but not rape if the animal is the penetrating player? So many wrongs. Anal sex doesn't automatically mean physical trauma, so if the correct precautions are taken, you could assphuck your dog and it would cease to be rape using your reasoning. That also means by your reasoning a man can't be raped if he's the one penetrating and that is nonsense.

You'll ignore it as you have been doing so in here from the start, but your argument has been busted again. The very fact you see it as rape one way should tell you that it's wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, they do. Rape is abuse and not being abused falls under an animal's rights.

What a weird and almost desperate distinction; like an agenda was trying to be pushed. So you agree that it's rape/abuse if the animal is penetrated... but not rape if the animal is the penetrating player? So many wrongs. Anal sex doesn't automatically mean physical trauma, so if the correct precautions are taken, you could assphuck your dog and it would cease to be rape using your reasoning. That also means by your reasoning a man can't be raped if he's the one penetrating and that is nonsense.

You'll ignore it as you have been doing so in here from the start, but your argument has been busted again. The very fact you see it as rape one way should tell you that it's wrong.
Rape isn't a crime ascribed to having sex with dogs. Even if you get caught banging an animal in the ass you don't get charged with rape even in places where bestiality is a crime. And saying that it has a right to not be abused is a right it possesses is silly in this scenario because the "right" you're ascribing to it is actually a limitation placed upon it(IE an adult dog isn't allowed to have sex with a human even if it wants to).

Dogs are a fair bit smaller than humans. I can totally see automatically assuming physical harm to anally penetrating them. Now it might be different for something like a cow, I mean people stick their whole arm up cow's asses when they're artificially inseminating them. And again, you're conflating the rights of a human with the rights of an animal. You're also again ignoring the premise of this thread. The premise is for the master to "let" his dog bang him(IE the dog wants to) not "FORCE" the dog to bang him. If a girl LETS a guy bang her in the ass, it's not rape.

No as far as I can see my arguments are the only ones holding up to scrutiny lol

Bestiality is akin to rape, you're being a pedant. You're only saying animal rights are silly because they destroy your angle.

Using your reasoning a tiny cock man like Trump could assrape a dog and would cease to be abuse/rape. In regards to your phaggy vegan's argument, there is a thing called the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and it dictates what can and ca not be done with animals in regards to food production and such. But that's an entirely different argument, this is about animal/rape abuse, so your conflating the two is silly and reaching. Well, what if the dog "let's" a human bang them in the ass, as you say, it "acts willing" as you've claimed, does it magically cease to be rape in your mind?

Nah, the very fact you see it as rape one way tells you your whole argument is wrong.

Originally posted by darthgoober
They also can't consent to medical procedures so taking them to the vet for things like getting fixed is always assault...

Also, in this thread the premise is whether or not it's ok for a master to let the do ban HIM, not vice versa At least for female dogs getting them spayed is absolutely a health issue. Take it from a guy who about 6 months ago had to shell out $3,500 for emergency pyometra surgery.

https://www.certapet.com/pyometra/

Originally posted by Robtard
Bestiality is akin to rape, you're being a pedant. You're only saying animal rights are silly because they destroy your angle.

Using your reasoning a tiny cock man like Trump could assrape a dog and would cease to be abuse/rape. In regards to your phaggy vegan's argument, there is a thing called the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and it dictates what can and ca not be done with animals in regards to food production and such. But that's an entirely different argument, this is about animal/rape abuse, so your conflating the two is silly and reaching. Well, what if the dog "let's" a human bang them in the ass, as you say, it "acts willing" as you've claimed, does it magically cease to be rape in your mind?

Nah, the very fact you see it as rape one way tells you your whole argument is wrong.
No it's not. Bestiality as a crime isn't about the rights of the animal, but rather the rights of the human(IE humans don't have the right to have sex with animals). It's an old standard from back when everyone thought it was ok to dictate what other people did in regards to sex and is rooted in religion and the "gross factor". That's most likely why the word "rape" isn't used legally in regards to animals, because some of what we do in regards to animals would absolutely be considered rape if it were preformed against a human. You stick something into a girls vagina to get her pregnant without her consent... that's rape.

Hey whether there are any situations in which having anal sex with an animal are ok is a wholly different topic than what this thread is about. I only mentioned it at all because you kept bringing it up so I pointed out that I could understand your reasoning in that specific regard.

I don't see it as rape in any fashion though, because rape doesn't apply to sex with animals.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Dogs are a fair bit smaller than humans. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/16/article-0-1B54C3B6000005DC-418_634x453.jpg

Sam just came.

Originally posted by NemeBro
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/16/article-0-1B54C3B6000005DC-418_634x453.jpg
Hey there are absolutely big dogs and small humans. I wasn't intending to pass on a universal truth, simply a generalization that's applicable frequently enough for me not to argue against a law against banging dogs in the ass lol

Originally posted by NemeBro
goober is slaughtering. What's left of this forum's reputation

Originally posted by darthgoober
No it's not. Bestiality as a crime isn't about the rights of the animal, but rather the rights of the human(IE humans don't have the right to have sex with animals). It's an old standard from back when everyone thought it was ok to dictate what other people did in regards to sex and is rooted in religion and the "gross factor". That's most likely why the word "rape" isn't used legally in regards to animals, because some of what we do in regards to animals would absolutely be considered rape if it were preformed against a human. You stick something into a girls vagina to get her pregnant without her consent... that's rape.

Hey whether there are any situations in which having anal sex with an animal are ok is a wholly different topic than what this thread is about. I only mentioned it at all because you kept bringing it up so I pointed out that I could understand your reasoning in that specific regard.

I don't see it as rape in any fashion though, because rape doesn't apply to sex with animals.

It's certainly abuse.

You're right, though. If animals have no "rights", it has to be about acceptable
standards of behavior from our fellow man.

This is something that skirts party lines. The same way we all agree you don't allow an animal to suffer, even if it's to be slaughtered for food.

And thank god for that.

This is a sick thread.

Why is it when someone to bang a dog it's rape but when a dog tries to bang someone's leg it's not?

Double standards!

Down with the petriarchy!

Omg I just read some of Goobers posts here... ffs.

Been computerless for the past couple days, so it took me longer than normal to respond to this. I didn't really to type all this on my phone.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I disagree, I believe this is that. Especially in discussions involving the opposing views of two specific people such as you and I. We have established that you believe animals have the same kinds of rights of consent as humans, so do you personally believe that getting an animal fixed or(more relevantly) artificially inseminated without their consent is wrong? I've seen you post, you seem to be both intelligent and well spoken, if there are major differences then you should be able to articulate them.
Tzeentch already pointed this out. Sexual agency isn't the same thing as population control. Personally, I'm not even sure we should own pets at all, but we do, and controlling their population is important for humans and arguably for the animals themselves. Unwanted pets frequently just get dumped in the streets, and homeless animals are something we want to avoid. Stray animals impact human life in real ways, and are usually doomed to shit lives compared to their housepet counterparts.

There's evidence that neutered pets legitimately live longer.

We're not even getting into things like the spread of illness, the impact of strays on local wildlife, and even impact on the local economy.

Regardless, and I've pointed this out before, even if you believe issue B to be wrong, then you should want to eradicate issue B, not perpepuate issue A. "Two wrongs don't make right" is a cliche, but it's accurate.
Originally posted by darthgoober
It is relevant for whether or not the dog's "rights" are being violated. Dog's will have sex with all kinds of shit, they don't have the same kind of lingering issues about it that humans do. While some breeds may have a potential IQ approaching that of a young child their minds still function in fundamentally different ways than a human's. When they have have reached adulthood and have achieved an IQ of a young child... that's as sexually mature as they're ever going to get. If they enjoy it while it's happening, they're not going to wake up with night terrors about it 5 years down the road. If they want to do it in the moment, that's consent for them. If the animals's not actually suffering physically or at least in his own mind, then no real harm is befalling him. So anyone objecting isn't actually objecting about harm to the dog, but rather how the interaction makes THEM feel. It's no different than people who want to ban stuff like porn or stripping even when those directly involved are totally cool with it.
We don't actually know for sure if dogs have lingering issues over it. We do know that dogs can suffer emotional damage and actually have pretty good long term memories though. I think you're confusing lack of ability to communicate distress and actually experiencing them. Infants, straight up, have been known to masturbate. Despite it "not being sexual" for them, it doesn't mean you should let a curious child tickle your butthole if they reach for it.

This whole comparison is silly though. In all honesty, many children won't necessarily recall sexual abuse that happened early in life. It doesn't make the action justifiable. I'd be interested in talking about sex as social construct with you, but it's probably best to err on the side of caution no?

And yes, it is in fact different from porn and stripping. Those are comprised of adult who have the ability to consent to the acts they do. The dog and kid can't.

That's kind of the crux of this issue we keep coming back to. Consent, which the dog is mentally incapable of giving. The fact that we "ignore" it for medical procedures doesn't change that tbh.

I agree with Goober. Dogs cant be raped, unless we gloss over artificial insemination. I saw a woman literally handjob a English Bulldog to orgasm, and it was on YouTube!

https://youtu.be/M85U1nI1IY8

If we admit dogs have lingering traumas linked to their memories, wouldn't letting them remain with blue balls count as a psychical violence against them? As mentioned by Darthgoober, we don't only control how animals reproduce, we manage whether they can have sex at all.

Todd Palmer.

Middle name, street. This must be how porn stars invent names..

Originally posted by Galan007
Sam just came.

Originally posted by Robtard
. . . akin to rape . . .

I heard that if it is a legitimate rape, the body has a way of shutting that whole thing down.

Originally posted by Galan007
I mean, you could beat the shit out of your dog and then lock it in the trunk of your car all day... It would still be happy to see you the next morning.

No one called Galan out on how he knows this...

Your avatar looks like a turd.

Probably. It was all done years ago back when one of the posters here (a Superman fan) who I was friends with, passed away from cancer. So I changed it to that symbol.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Probably. It was all done years ago back when one of the posters here (a Superman fan) who I was friends with, passed away from cancer. So I changed it to that symbol.

Welcome to GDF, where cancer and death are worshipped, my innocent friend.

https://c.tenor.com/qMhkQrLNobQAAAAC/worms-creepy.gif

The fact is, no one "lets" them.


They train them or coerce them.


A male dog humps legs, not genitals. By all means let him finish if that's what you want.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Welcome to GDF, where cancer and death are worshipped, my innocent friend.

https://c.tenor.com/qMhkQrLNobQAAAAC/worms-creepy.gif You could use those maggots to get that seksie moostaaache!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I heard that if it is a legitimate rape, the body has a way of shutting that whole thing down.

so much stupidity coming out of republican mouths, i totally forgot that one

Straw man. This thread is about letting your dog bang you, not banging your dog

Lol I don't think humans and dogs should bang at all.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
"Just set aside the ew factor"

No. That's a pretty huge factor and a pretty flimsy reason, like I said above. That's your justification, not a sane person's. You know any sane men that get penetrated by dogs? You hang out with anyone that goes "Yeah I'm just going to grab some milk from the store, maybe grab a 6 pack and watch the game later. You guys want to head over before Rover sticks his cock in my ass later tonight? I told him 'not deep' last time, and he went knot deep! What a weekend that was!" Lmao at the scenario, and yeah this whole thing is gross.

Originally posted by SamZED
Those of you who've seen my thread about incest are probably not shocked by this one. Everyone else... bear with me for a sec...

From a progressive stand point... can you try givving me reasons for why a person shouldn't be allowed to do what's described in the title?
Once you get rid of the "Ewww!" factor and "Well, the bible says..." factor... Full grown functioning adult that is absolutely "normal" otherwise. And uses all the necessary protection (not talking about a leash here).
From a progressive point of view... is there a reason why this person shouldn't be accepted by the society? Not ridiculed at work or worse - fired for being open about such sexual preferences? I made it a "passive" position on purpose to avoid pets rights violation argument to make it a bit more difficult.

And before you ask - no I don't have a dog. I have a cat but she wasn't interested. This might be one of the stupidest thing I've ever read on here.

Originally posted by Newjak
This might be one of the stupidest thing I've ever read on here. Newjak I have always liked your sig, man, good shit. It's christmas so positive vibes.

He tried to **** his cat?

But the cat said no.

Then he complained on kmc! crylaugh

https://media.giphy.com/media/vkbfsVHULOyR2/giphy.gif