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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 19th, 2018 at 07:51 PM
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 19th, 2018 at 08:19 PM
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.
__________________ 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.
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.
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 19th, 2018 at 09:37 PM
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.
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.
__________________
"I am tired of Earth. These people.
I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives."
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?
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Sep 19th, 2018 at 10:29 PM
KMC Community Forums
Sep 19th, 2018 06:11 PM
