So why shouldn't I let my dog bang me?

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.

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

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

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.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Robtard

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".

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.

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.

😆 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".

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.