Andropov4 wrote:Not to mention that most animals orifices are not designed to...accommodate human genitalia, nor are human orifices designed to accommodate all animal genitalia.
DoglovingJim wrote:Ericthebearjew wrote:Apparently, someone reported Jim on PWoT. I don't think that person knows what a schtick is. It......it is a schtick..........right?
Wait, somebody reported me?
Andropov4 wrote:How about this then: an animal can be humanely raised and slaughtered for food with a minimum of pain and suffering. However, there is no circumstance in which you can fuck an animal that is not inherently abusive.
Andropov4 wrote: Not to mention that most animals orifices are not designed to...accommodate human genitalia, nor are human orifices designed to accommodate all animal genitalia.
krankittoeleven wrote:Food is a necessity, sexual gratification is not.
cmsellers wrote:@Aquila:
I know this is the exact opposite of your intention, but you're making me seriously question why we do criminalize bestiality with large, dumb, animals.
Ericthebearjew wrote:DoglovingJim wrote:Ericthebearjew wrote:Apparently, someone reported Jim on PWoT. I don't think that person knows what a schtick is. It......it is a schtick..........right?
Wait, somebody reported me?
Yep.
Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!
skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!
Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
Andropov4 wrote:rowdyrodimus wrote:I guess I look at this the same way I look at all sexual fetishes/differences than the "norm" (the norm being the standard adult male-adult female relationship, basically the only relationships Pat Robertson would acknowledge) aside from pedophilia and other acts involving children. As long as it's not hurting anyone and is kept between them and whatever, then fine, just don't make a production out of it and expect everyone in the world to agree with it.
What people do in their bedroom or motels isn't anyone's business but their own. However, when it comes to animals, don't sneak into my yard and start banging my dog and then say "she agreed to it because of the way she looked at me". No, animals are PROPERTY. I know it's looked at badly now to say a living thing is property, but with animals it's true. If I went to that same person's home and stole a PS4 and said the power light was off which meant it was being neglected and wanted to come home with me because I would pay attention to it, would that be a valid reason? Fuck no. Just like saying a dog or cat gave a person a "look" or rubbed against their leg isn't a valid reason to fuck them, especially an animal that belongs to someone else.
I don't like the fact that I used the term property when describing my dog, hell, she knows me as "bubba" (a term for brother in the south at least) and is like a member of family. If a person gets in her pen and starts trying to put their dick anywhere near her, it's like trying to rape a member of my family and they can expect some hot lead ripping through different parts of their body from Messrs. Smith and Wesson.
I disagree. Animals cannot give consent, in much the same way a child cannot.Aquila89 wrote:This isn't really a moral objection, just gives another reason for why having sex with animals isn't practical. And it's kind of a copout. I'm sure the risk of disease can be minimized. Test the animal beforehand, use a condom, whatever.
How about this then: an animal can be humanely raised and slaughtered for food with a minimum of pain and suffering. However, there is no circumstance in which you can fuck an animal that is not inherently abusive.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests