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.
Sigh.. yes.
__________________
Azula: My mommy didn't love me so I'm going to burn down your village.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
Last edited by StyleTime on Sep 17th, 2018 at 06:37 PM
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...
I'd say taking their nuts definitely constitutes assault if we're granting them the same rights as people when it comes to "consent".
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 17th, 2018 at 07:18 PM
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.
__________________
Azula: My mommy didn't love me so I'm going to burn down your village.
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.
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.
Last edited by StyleTime on Sep 18th, 2018 at 05:54 PM
Hypocrisy is a relevant topic because laws are, in large part, based upon precedent.
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 18th, 2018 at 09:37 PM
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.
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.
Last edited by StyleTime on Sep 18th, 2018 at 10:32 PM
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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 18th, 2018 at 10:59 PM
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 19th, 2018 at 03:16 AM
KMC Community Forums
Sep 17th, 2018 07:11 AM
I'm happy with the way this thread's going so far.
Except in this case you're not actually fuking anyone.
