good, giving, and game.
Well, Ok, then how do we define mentally ill? And I am asking genuinely. I mean, I can’t help but think she is, but if so, how is it manifesting? Simply from her desire to do her dog? Well, she’s getting off, dog’s getting off, it shoudn’t be a big deal. So simply from her desire to do what we’ve tentatively agreed upon is a wrong thing? Well, I speed, and sometimes do other wrong things, too, doesn’t make me mentally ill. We don’t think she’s exclusively wrapped up in the dog, she did agree to see the OP and maybe even was considering a relationship with him, in the meantime, she’s got this living, breathing, happy sex toy at home.
I am seriously confused. I may have to retract my earlier opinion. What is the definition of mentally ill? Chemical imbalance? Hormonal imbalance? Inability to deal with the real world? Which definition are we even using here?
I agree that sex with children [as an adult. teen on teen is another category and given the biological appropriateness for teens to procreate historically is entirely different.] is sick, no question.
I do disagree that female human male animal falls in the same category. That dog knew exactly what was going on, he was getting laid. It wasnt like a male with a female dog, as the female dog wouldnt have been in heat nor receptive to non-dog sex. That would be abberrant from the non-consensual poitn of view. Obviously the male dog consented, he didnt have to be forced. As demonstrated by centuries of leg humping dogs, they fully understand what sex is, and consider humans part of the pack [humping can be a dominance establishing act.]
Hah, as usual, “males can’t be raped”. :rolleyes:
My experience in this field is limited, but I do believe it’s possible for a bitch to be thoroughly into it - and at least one Doper has posted about his queen cat presenting to him when she was desperate for someone to make kittens with…
Still think the consent angle is meaningless when applied to a creature not capable of informed consent under any circumstances, and subject to a whole variety of treatment not subject to its consent. (This doesn’t validate sex with children or the mentally handicapped, as these classes of person are not subject to being slaughtered for meat or having their skin made into handbags after their death, and so on.)
Anaamika:
Exactly. Let’s define our terms first and then discuss whether or not they apply to Doggy Gal.
Eliding the difference between “mental illness is a disorder of the brain chemistry, pertaining to neurotransmitter function and the governing & responsiveness to hormones that regulate them”, on the one hand, and “anyone who acts batshit insane and engages in behavior that’s socially unacceptable and inherently self-destructive on an emotional and esteem level is, by definition, mentally ill”, on the other, is intellectually irresponsible.
In this thread, the latter sense of the term seems to be the one in effect. I’m not sure what it means, aside from being a restatement of “I think that’s just fucking weird” — unless someone seriously wants to propose that Doggy Girl’s behavior is a specific indicator of dopamine-receptor insensitivity or serotonin depletion or something?
Any time a term acquires multiple interchangeable meanings, the continued use of the term can lure people into slipping from one meaning to the other. Like “fuck” meaning “sex” and also meaning “to ruin or mess up” ==> thinking of sex as an exploitatively violent thing if you refer to it as “fucking” a lot of the time.
From the “harm” argument: Necrophilia is “wrong” because it harms the family of the deceased. No one that I know of would give consent for their own or their mother’s dead body to be fucked. Post-death, we often give the family of the deceased the right to consent to treatment of the body as they see fit, not as the dead person saw fit. In many states, living wills or organ donation requests are not legally binding - your husband could decide not to donate your organs, even if you have it in writing that you want to.
From the “disease” argument: Necrophilia, I would expect, has risks of disease much higher than with live bodies. Perhaps not so much for fresh morgue necrophilia, but for a decomposing body, certainly. (Well, not certainly. If **gabriela **comes in and tells me a six month old corpse is fresh as a daisy, bacteria-wise, I’ll believe her.)
From the “consent” argument: A dead body can’t give consent, even by appearing eager to have sex, like a dog can. If you have a signed consent form from the person pre-death, witnessed and notarized, then we may be talking something different.
From the “mental illness” argument: According to this abstract on PubMed, “Neither psychosis, mental retardation, nor sadism appears to be inherent in necrophilia.”, so necrophilia is not neccessarily indicitive of mental illness in the most restrictive sense of the term (classified as a mental illness by the people we as a society (with admitted exceptions, A Hunter3,) train, license and trust to determine such things.)
Do I think necrophilia is wrong, morally? Absolutely, for the reasons I outlined above. Would I date a necrophiliac? Not in a million, gazillion years. But the OP was asking about mental illness, and that’s very specific.
I can’t count how many times I’ve seen a person with pain down the back of their leg telling me they have sciatica. “Have you been diagnosed by a doctor?” I’ll ask. They say no. Well, then, they may not have sciatica. In fact, sciatica is a very specific diagnosis, and it’s inflamation of the sciatic nerve. Any old pain down your leg isn’t sciatica. Sciatica can only be diagnosed by a doctor, and only if very specific symptoms are present. Same with mental illness.
I think there’s a ton of people out there who are batshit insane. People who separate sheets of toilet paper to save money are batshit insane. My last boss, who would triple-book her appointments and then yell at me because her day was too busy was batshit insane. Some of the moderators around here in threads on drugs and file sharing are batshit insane. But “batshit insane” isn’t the same as “mental illness”.
I don’t know if you are or not, but it would surprise me greatly. Are we supposed to give our dates IQ tests now? I understand that in a practical sense, a severely mentally handicapped person is likely to live at home or in group care, and if sex happens in those places, we’re looking at incest (illegal) or sex with a caregiver (which may be illegal, or may simply be against company policy.) But where is the line drawn? Can I invite the developmentally disabled guy who works at the Burger King home with me? Why not? Does he wear a med alert bracelet with his IQ on it so I can determine if it’s legal for me to have sex with him?
Given appropriate birth and STD control measures, I think it’s cruel and unusual to deny the mentally handicapped a sex life. This talk about “mentally a child” is complete bullshit. It’s a metaphor used to help the people around them sort of kind of understand how much complexity they can grasp, but it’s not literal, by any stretch. They have the “mind” of a not-very-intelligent 30 year old, or whatever they are. This includes thinking other people are sexy after puberty, but often lacking impulse control. I don’t think they can give informed consent to pregnancy and childbirth - because those are longer term issues than most of them can grasp (although if someone can convice her doctors that she really gets it and wants a baby, more power to her), but I don’t think the ramifications of sex beyond that are too hard to grasp.
Right. When I posted the first reply, I was careful to stick with the most literal interpretation of the OP’s question: “Would the licensed people trained to use the term “mental illness” in a scientifically meaningful way automatically diagnose someone mentally ill because of a sexual practice?” And the answer is, and remains, no.
Do I think dog-fuckers are batshit insane? Eh, maybe. Not really, honestly. It’s one fetish I sort of get, even though I have no desire to fuck a dog myself. I can understand why a dog phobe wouldn’t get it in the slightest though.
Not to everyone. I’d read Kath’s stories on the subject, and I found them interesting; the text alone didn’t set me off. (I’ve always declined to look for actual video: in the list of things I don’t want found on my hard disk in the event my computer is confiscated by the police, zoophilia videos are #3.) So I was reasonably sure that some persons might not find the mere idea unrelentingly offensive. Plus you’ll note that I gave very few details as to the actual act, and I spoiler-faced the description so that no one would accidentally read it. I think the OP is pretty clear if you skip the spoilered description, and in retrospect I wish I’d omited it.
I could probably guess with some accuracy, but pray tell what are #1 & #2 on your list? I’d be interested in hearing the rest of the list, as well.
Happened to my best friend’s boyfriend. It’s his favorite story to tell, but AFAIK he wasn’t in to it.
Well, mostly I was KIDDING, Winston; I don’t have a list written down or anything like that. But as I was typing the earlier reply, it occurred to me that zoophilia video isn’t the worst thing to have found on your computer; kiddy porn and plans to assassinate the president (or engage in other terrorist activity) have to be tied for first place. What would you have guessed?
This thing not only fucks animals - but considers herself married to her pet, seriously?
Verdict: Sick. Probably anti-social & a self-destuctive masochist. Next case.
Not claiming to be a puritan, I know people get off on videos of such antics - but there’s a big difference between laughing @ bootleg videos from Brazil and considering yourself married to a dog. I used to work in a junkyard - When dogs couple, it gets quite violent.Does she have bitemarks on the back of her neck - Or have the dogs fangs pulled?
Has her Hubby been declawed - Or is her ribcage and back covered in scar tissue?
Do the do it in the shower - Or does someone stand-by with a bucket of water when her groomed groom pops off?She may one day attain internet greatness, in a corpse-like fasion; alaMr Hands.
The Op came back to say:
So it doesn’t seem she was very serious about the marriage comment.
And I still don’t buy she’s “sick” or anti-social. We see that she is looking to make new friends, as she made friends with the OP, is willing to meet them, is willing to share her “hobbies” (for lack of a better word) with the OP… What behavior of hers is self-destructive? I see none that can be easily defined.
You’ll have to define your terms. Define sick, anti-social, and masochistic, also self-destructive, then show us how she fits those categories. Please.
And Malacandra. I have been thinking of your sarcastic comment that “males can’t be raped”. I don’t see that that’s the point here, exactly, the point is - was that male doggy raped? If so, is it merely because we say he is “unable to consent” or because he really can’t consent? If he can’t consent, can he consent with another doggy? Why is it OK for him to consent to that? I mean, lots of people have made the mentally retarded or children analogy, but we wouldn’t let the mentally retarded or a child have sex with others like them, would we?
Going off topic for a moment–do dogs really hump the legs of humans as enthusiastically as they are shown in many movies and TV shows? Is that sexual behavior, or something else entirely? Obviously I’m way too phobic to find out from personal experience; should a dog any bigger than a beagle attempt that with me, I’m sure I’d die of a heart attack.
I don’t mean this in a snarky way, by the way. I just wanted to make it clear I knew you were being sarcastic.
Og knows I can’t go up against you in snarkiness, Mr. Snarky. 
I’ve always heard it was a dominance thing- just like when dogs hump each other, generally (of course I know that, when a mommy and a daddy dog fall in love. . . blah blah 
). When two dogs first meet, one will usually hump the other eventually, to establish dominance.
So a dog humping the leg of a human being is trying to establish itself as Alpha (relative to that human, of course)?
I don’t get why or how the OP could be so utterly shocked and disgusted by seeing the woman fuck her dog. It’s not like he just met her at the grocery store, went home with her, he turns his back to get another Sprite out of the fridge and suddenly she’s got dog cock jammed in her.
They were erotic writing buddies, she wrote about bestiality all the time, she told him it was for real, he met her enough to know that she might be telling the truth, she told him to come by and see for himself, then she introduces her dog and says something along the lines “Now he’s going to fuck me. You sit there and watch.”
Now if he were truly shocked and disgusted, why did he sit there and watch? Even if he didn’t really believe her up to that moment, wouldn’t he have walked out? If it was something so insanely bizarre and distasteful, wouldn’t you say “Hey, not for me! Thanks anyway! See ya!”
I’m surprised that anyone who writes eroticism would be shocked that some people are actually into such things. Unusual and uncommon? Sure. But there are people who really DO all those things some people just write about.
I’m not saying the story is made up. I’m just questioning the claim that the OP was so amazed and disgusted by it. Any chance he’s feeling wierd about having enjoyed it and now is trying to deal with that? Just asking.
If it had been me, I would have gone in fully expecting her to fuck her dog. And I would have sat there and watched. And enjoyed it.
I’m not a dog trainer, nor do I claim to be one, but I would theorize that that is the case.
I thought I’d enjoy it a lot more than I did, actually. And no small part of my lack of enjoyment was my dog phobia; it’s probably impossible for me be relaxed in the presence of a dog. I’ll happily admit to enjoying Kath’s stories on the subject, and had she presented me with a videotape of the scene rather than the actual event, my response would very likely have been different.
What I was trying to get at in my post, though, is the fact that I didn’t truly believe such things happened with women unless they were coerced, financially desperate, or moved by drug addiction. Because Kath was clearly none of these things, it made me wonder, “Can she possibly be well? She SEEMS well, but…”
As I implied above, I don’t completely trust my reaction, because so much phobia is wound up in it. Also some of my own kinks would likely strike the James Dobsons of the world as being indicative of mental sickness on my part, which causes me to wonder if I am being hypocritical, or how hypocritical I’m being.
Maybe my reaction, though born of my phobias, is nevertheless accurate, and persons engaging in such behaviors are in need of therapy. But then why are spankers not automatically the same way, or role players, or fill-in-the-blank?