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

Started by darthgoober7 pages
darthgoober Senior Member

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.

Robtard Senor Member

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.

darthgoober Senior Member

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".

Robtard Senor Member

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

darthgoober Senior Member

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.

Robtard Senor Member

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.

darthgoober Senior Member

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.

Robtard Senor Member

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.

darthgoober Senior Member

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.

darthgoober Senior Member

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.

Robtard Senor Member

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."

darthgoober Senior Member

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.

Robtard Senor Member

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 🙂

darthgoober Senior Member

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 🙂

NemeBro Senior Member

goober is slaughtering.

Robtard Senor Member
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

darthgoober Senior Member

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.

BackFire Blood. It's nature's lube

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

Robtard Senor Member

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 [larger breed] 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.

darthgoober Senior Member

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 [larger breed] 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