I still don’t buy any of this ‘domination’ theory. Male dogs like to hump objects because it FEELS GOOD, not because it has anything to do with domination.
If a dog humps your leg, does that mean it wants to ‘dominate’ your leg?
If a dog humps a bean bag chair, does that mean it wants to ‘dominate’ a bean bag chair?
If a dog humps a piece of rolled-up carpet, does that mean it wants to ‘dominate’ a piece of rolled-up carpet?
NO!
Dogs are simple creatures. So are men. We like to do what feels good.
My humor detector is either malfunctioning, or are you seriously stating that because someone believes that an abused animal need not necessarily be destroyed that that person is literally a dog fucker for disagreeing with you? Talk about poisoning the well. “Agree with me or you fuck dogs!” Cute. Care to explain, or am I justified in thinking you are a drooling idiot?
A quick search of the web results in hundreds of programs to shelter or rehabilitate abused dogs. Better get started on that letter writing campaign and teach those dog fucker a lesson.
Well, I’m not exactly hiding. Did we have an appointment of some sort that I missed? You’ll have to excuse me, I’m a bit preoccupied with the revelation that I am gasp a dog fucker. [sub]I swear she looked pretty hot in the dim lighting[/sub]
Waverly Don’t paraphrase my posts in a manner that supports your argument you fucking jackass. Either quote me or not but don’t twist my words around and attribute them to me as “so what you’re saying is…”
I did not say that “a person is literally a dog fucker for disagreeing with me” You said that.
I also did not say " Agree with me or you fuck dogs". You said that too.
So in answer to your question, No I do not think you are justified in thinking I am a drooling idiot but just maybe I am justified in thinking the very same thing about you.
My postion is and has always been that dogs are being psychologically damaged when used as sexual objects for humans. Even if the dog participates willingly, even if he/she seems to enjoy it, even if they are treated like babies and sleep on silk sheets and eat only meals prepared for them by their own personal chef and their owners love them very very much—** they are being abused**.
Using your dog for sexual purposes blurs the line between dominance and submission. Period. It may not matter to you who the dog thinks is boss but believe me it matters to the dog.
Because there are no absolutes, not every dog in every situation will need to be destroyed but it is an undisputable fact that a dog who feels superior to a human is dangerous and extremely difficult to retrain and euthanasia is usually the only recourse.
My point is not that we should hunt down all these sex-dogs and destroy them, my point is they should not be created in the first place.
“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep¹s, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”
That’s gratitude for ya. Bowzer does ya a favor, and ya turn around and off him. Pretty cold, dontcha think?
It also explains why all those damn St. Paulites are over here hawking shar pei steaks.
Mermaid, I quoted you accurately and went on to paraphrase in an effort to illustrate the way I understood your words. I did ask for clarification. I’m left wondering why you said, “you dog fuckers,” which would seem to be addressing people from within this thread. Who were you addressing with that statement?
I can agree that it is wrong and is a form of abuse, but it appears to me that there are people (I presume professionals) that will take these abused dogs in. We can agree to disagree on the rest – and I’ll retract my insinuation that you are a drooling idiot.
** Waverly** unless you have something meaningful or different to add to the discussion you should probably just let it rest.
You did indeed quote:
Originally posted by The Mermaid
While I may not be smart enough to put forth an argument lucid enough to convince all you dog fuckers to knock it off, I am smart enough to know when to shut up about it.
But it is inconceivable to me how you got the following sentences from the above quote.
“are you seriously stating that because someone believes that an abused animal need not necessarily be destroyed that that person is literally a dog fucker for disagreeing with you? Talk about poisoning the well. “Agree with me or you fuck dogs!” Cute. Care to explain, or am I justified in thinking you are a drooling idiot?”
To paraphrase my above quoted phrase, I was saying that I have come to the conclusion that I do not possess the mental processes required to prepare an argument compelling enough to make people engaging in sexual behavior with their dogs stop doing just that.
I was implying that no argument–no matter how well thought out, prepared and documented would be sufficient to convince zoophiles otherwise because they are mentally ill. Mental illness does not listen to reason.
As to whom the thread is addressed, if the shoe fits…I never once suggested that you engaged in this behavior but it was you who referred to yourself as “gasp a dog fucker.”
I do not intend to respond to each of your little snipes any further. I have said all I care to say about this sick, sad, disgusting practice. It might be a good idea if you do the same.
Well, thank God someone finally came along and told me why boinking a beagle is wrong. I kinda thought it was all along, but I was never quite sure why before.
I get it now: A dog burying a bone in the back yard is OK. A dog burying a bone in your back yard is naughty.
I merely meant to point out the very unusual nature of the thread, to me, at any rate. I’ve never been in a forum where such a thing was seriously discussed, and I’m still relatively new to this one. I posted to convey my surprise.
Why jump on me? I realize that this is the pit, but was my harmless/pointless comment worth flaming me over?
Mermaid, How about you get a fucking clue? I’ve tried giving the benefit of the doubt to your sniveling incompetence at supporting your completely made up opinion that, and I quote,
That is from sentence #1 of your misguided rant. It was this very statement I asked you to provide some support for. Instead, you have twice tried to imply that those who don’t agree with you were somehow guilty of bestiality.
and
Did someone, anyone, in either of these threads admit to bestiality and I missed it? Who the fuck do you think you are addressing and accusing of fucking animals?
For your information, there is an organization specializing in acting as an advocate for sexually abused animals, ASIRS, the Animal Sexual Abuse and Resource Site. Not surprisingly, these folk talk about rescuing these animals, as do many shelters and similar groups. Got that? Rescue, not euthanize. Your hypothesis that after such abuse
is complete nonsense. Feel free to come back with further histrionics. Go ahead and suggest I shouldn’t post in this thread anymore, but Jesus Christ on a pink pogo stick, learn the difference between fact and fantasy.
That’s all well and good, but none of us are claiming to be interested in boinking Fido. (Quite the opposite in my case, thanks. :rolleyes:)
So if you aren’t willing to try to convince us, but instead make sweeping claims, then call us names and run from the room in tears when we question you, that doesn’t suggest that you’ve got a good argument of any sort.
Ok, forgive me, I’m not terribly good at making my point, so I’ll probably only get myself all confused here! :S
To be honest, I don’t know exactly what my stance is on “animal-love”. I have fantasised about sex with animals. And maybe if the oportunity arose, I would go through with it - or maybe I would realise that they are only just “fantasies”.
Also, I think we’ve failed to note that animals are all different.
(I have two cats from the same litter, raised identically, and even before they went into the “outside world” they had completely different personalities. BTW - Does poking their fluffy little “pompoms” count?)
Maybe some animals would enjoy it, even seek it out.
Does that then make the animal a “pervert”?
Maybe some species are more appropriate for shagging then others.
It is something that I don’t see every really being resolved, as we can’t get an opinion from the animal. Unless anyone knows where Dr Doolittle is?
As long as no harm of any kind is being done to any parties involved. I don’t see a problem with it.
(but then - how do you define, or even recognise “harm”)
Sorry to double post, just thought of another thing…
People have argued here that we’re giving our animals human traits…
But what about when we give our humans animal traits?
Did anyone ever watch that series “Beauty & the Beast” I though Vincent was gorgeous - and he was very lion-like.
I also have a thing about Wolverine & Sabretooth from the X-men (the comics, not the film!) - they too are very animal-like.
So, hold on, if I find this sort of thing attractive, is it because I’m sick?
(if so there’s a lot of other people out there! - DAMN, those Wolverine X-fiction sites! phew)
Or, did the people who create these characters make them beasty in order to make them sexy? (and they were supposed to be sexy!) And in actual fact it’s not all that uncommon to find animals attractive?
Funny I don’t remember running screaming from the room. It’s pretty calm around here. Maybe it is you who is hysterical.
My purpose for starting this thread was to address those who would argue in favor of beastiality with the statement that no harm is being done to the dog if is done with love. I have read many articles that offer evidence to the contrary. I am a pet owner and a lover of all animals. I cannot sit silent when I feel that there is something to say.
I don’t mind humeorous replies cause people have something funny to say. I thinking it is fucking ridiculous to have to defend every little sentence and argue semantics when everyone is basically in agreement that it is a bad thing.
I honestly can’t figure out what is wrong with a few of you guys. Do you want to tell me that pet sex is a good thing? Do you want to say that you don’t like my choice of words? Specifically what about my position do you find so offensive that people feel the need to take cheap shots?
Waverly what the fuck is your problem? Your “I’m sorry I don’t understand could you explain it to me again” tactic is passive-aggressive at its best. When you misquote me and I call you on it, I suddenly need to get a fucking clue? Someone here needs a clue all right but it ain’t me.
If you want to argue that you support having sexual relations with your pet then go ahead. If you want to tell me to go fuck myself start another thread. Do what you want, I really couldn’t care less just stop hijacking this thread for your own little temper tantrum.
If you want to see both sides of the arguement, go back and look at the debate I posted the link to earlier. No definitive answers, but it may give The Mermaid some idea of the grounds for the arguement. There are some well-reasoned comments there.
Believe it or not, it is possible to argue for the other side of the coin without being a participant in pet love; or in fact, without having any interest in zoophilia. All you need is a desire to look at the logical and ethical issues behind our societal belief that “it’s just wrong”.
Mermaid: No offense intended, but I think you are missing the argument. It seems most folks aren’t arguing in favor of having sex with dogs ( or any other animal ). They’re just questioning the wisdom of euthanizing any dog found to have engaged/been used in an act or multiple acts of bestiality.
So the argument, such as it is, is over a side point you made, not the main point.
You see, I’m willing to buy your contention. But you have to offer more solid evidence than you have so far. I agree that an individual dog of a hyper-dominant breed, like the Presa Canarios involved in the infamous SF case, might indeed start to take on a “Alpha” role, possibly to the point of serious and dangerous aggression. I also happen to think that certain dogs that have been bred for fighting ( not entire breeds, I’m fond of Pit Bulls for example - but certain individual animals bred in backyards for underground dog fighting circles ) are so genetically fucked up thart they are a danger in their very existence and should probably be put down. However extrapolating to all dogs are a potential threat after having been rescued from a bestiality situation ( which is what you seemed to imply in your first post, admittedly you have amended that slightly since then ) seems an enormous stretch. My own anecdotal experience would tend to contradict the “sex automatically = assumption of Alpha male characteristics” contention. In fact based on what I’ve read about domestic dog breed-mediated psychology ( which I was interested in, in my youth ), I would expect it to be the exception, rather than the rule for many, perhaps most, dog breeds. Having known people that have kept nearly pure-bred wolves ( I’ll put aside whether that’s a good idea ), I don’t think you can necessarily always extrapolate wolf behavior to most domestic dogs.
I’m willing to admit I might be wrong and you might be right, but I’d like to see better evidence before I’m convinced. Perhaps a study of some sort on aggression in said rescued animals and their resistance to re-training and rehabilitation.
If I may say so without giving offense, you seem to have a very visceral reaction to this issue, which is understandable. However IMHO it is making you come off as a bit unnecessarily defensive and strident. Perhaps a calmer approach might work better.
But if it makes you feel better, feel free to tell me to fuck off ;).
I’m not passive aggressive, so let me just straighten this out right now: I think you are a damnable lying encephalitic invertebrate. Why do I say this? Well aside from what I have previously posted, you have for a 4th time suggested that someone disagreeing with you is pro-bestiality:
Let me bold this, as you seem to have some problems with reading comprehension: provide one fucking goddam cite or quote where I claimed bestiality was a good thing. Be sure to ignore the times I stated the exact opposite.
Bolding time again: indicate exactly where I misquoted you, or cease with the baseless accusations. This is particularly stupid, as the entire content of our conversation is sitting right here in plain text. How daft are you?
If I can avoid the event horizon of your density for just a moment longer: I have, in a steady progression from nicely to not-so-nicely, asked you to support your contention that abused animals should be euthanized! This is not nitpicking your wording, unless you freaking don’t understand what the word euthanized means. It was one of the first things you stated, and you stated it at least twice. I’m sorry, but taking one of your points and shrugging it off as suddenly ancillary is not a defense. Go back and read your own OP.
I provided a cite to the contrary. I know you cannot provide cites, as either they don’t exist or you are too inept, so maybe you should just concede this untenable point.
Would that be schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or clinical depression? I was not aware that any of the biologically-based disorders of the brain known to mental health professionals as “mental illness” had, among their symptoms, a tendency to seek out sex with one’s pets!??
Or perhaps you would be willing to concede, as a representative of the mental health professions, that “mental illness” is used as a synonym for “nuts” or “crazy” within as well as outside of the mental health profession?
Cross-reference this thread in case you’re wondering.
