# Have you ever had the "feeling" some Furries have sex with their PETS?



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 23, 2014)

I always had the feeling they do when they have pets & they make anthro x feral porn or just feral porn in general.
The feelings are greater when I see dog feral porn or any domestic feral animal porn.
If you don't understand what I feel & you think I'm a jerk for thinking this way...
Imagine a father who has made loli porn "kid porn or kid x adult porn" and he has kids, just because it's drawn porn doesn't make it any less suspicious.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 23, 2014)

Well I mean how else are you supposed to bond with your dog?


----------



## Gogoat Rowboat (Feb 23, 2014)

Maybe in some people's imagination, but I try to keep ferals and anthros separate in mine.
The very idea sort of creeps me out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

Some people do, most of them are not furries, although some are, and hopefully all of them will get caught by the authorities.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 23, 2014)

[yt]SSR6ZzjDZ94[/yt]


----------



## dialup (Feb 23, 2014)

Not so much with the feral stuff. I think it's rather odd, but I don't necessarily think most people who are into it would think about getting the peanut butter out and having their dog go to town on them. I don't doubt some of them do it, though. 

If it's for real life beastiality porn, then yeah you're gross and you don't deserve to ever be around animals.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 23, 2014)

I thought that the general consensus *in art* was:

Anthro x Anthro - Ok
Feral x Feral - Ok(?), I've seen a lot of it around, but mostly with mythical creatures/pokemon/whatever. Personally I'm fine with it as long as there aren't irl animals depicted (dogs, cats, ect)
Anthro x Feral - Oh fuck no.

As for in real life, well, in that case it's obvious.

Anyway, @thread title, I believe the percentage statistic that those who do/don't do that are in the fandom is the same as outside the fandom? I think it was in one of the furry surveys iirc. But yeah, it's horrible either way.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

The surveys found that the number of people admitting an attraction to animals was the same in and out of the fandom. The proportion of zoophiles who have sex with animals might still vary, although I have no idea to what extent or in which direction.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The surveys found that the number of people admitting an attraction to animals was the same in and out of the fandom. The proportion of zoophiles who have sex with animals might still vary, although I have no idea to what extent or in which direction.



Now to be fair, how many people are seriously going to admit to being a dogfucker, even anonymously?


----------



## RedDagger (Feb 23, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Now to be fair, how many people are seriously going to admit to being a dogfucker, even anonymously?



I'd guess people who don't see much wrong with it, or trust the anonymity of the survey. 

As for the OP, I'd wonder how many of them specifically prefer the (in the example) loli over actual child stuff. I'd hope it's a large percentage...


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Now to be fair, how many people are seriously going to admit to being a dogfucker, even anonymously?



That's probably why no survey asks that, or at least no survey I am aware of.


----------



## Inpw (Feb 23, 2014)

Today I learned a new term and googled "loli porn". WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!!!? I know sicko's like this exist but seriously WTF? Theres actually a term flying around for this crap? 

Any who, fuck bestiality perverts and sicko pedophiles.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2014)

Nevermind, was told to reopen it. Go hog wild.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 23, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That's probably why no survey asks that, or at least no survey I am aware of.


http://klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php

2nd to last section, "Of 3267 respondents, the number describing themselves as:"

My guess is that they worded the question as "what do you describe yourself as" with a checkbox. I don't think it outright said, "do you engage in bestiality y/n".

EDIT: Also, this thread was re-opened, for those wondering, because most people here were responding and discussing the topic in a mature way (much like the thread here - http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...our-thoughts-about-NSFW-Furry-artworks-images, even though the topic was nsfw). Any admission, advocation to break the law or graphic descriptions will be punished.


----------



## Rooko (Feb 23, 2014)

Bestiality in every form is wrong. And to distinguish between bestiality and yiff is simple. Can the being give consent? Can it say yes/no? Then go right ahead! I don't care if it's on top, it doesn't know the difference of one hole to another. If the being cannot give consent, it is wrong to mate it, absolutely, disgustingly wrong.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 23, 2014)

That justification is lacking, for it prohibits any sex at all among any non human species. Breeding dogs with eachother would be defined as disgustingly wrong by your terms. 

There are simpler and less convoluted justifications which do not make weird predictions when taken to their limits.


----------



## Rooko (Feb 23, 2014)

I'm speaking in context to this post. Of course animals having sex with each other is fine.


----------



## Troj (Feb 23, 2014)

Am I mis-remembering, or didn't this thread get locked earlier? If so, are ya'll stupid?

Asking if furries necessarily have sex with their pets is in the same smug, disingenuous, bullshit line as "just-asking" if Boy Scout leaders or children's entertainers are gay pedophiles, or if police officers are closet fascists, or if "some Jews" practice blood libel.

If you comb through the anecdotal evidence on the subject, there are clearly some self-identified, alleged, and/or assumed-by-others-to-be furries who are zoophiles, and there are obviously _many_ non-furries who are also zoophiles.

More importantly, there are many furries who _aren't. _

This kind of cutesy-sneaky idle speculation certainly doesn't do the furries who _aren't  _zoophiles any favors, creates an "in" for people to start justifying behaviors that are very likely to be harmful and non-consensual, and doesn't shed any real, productive light on the issue.


----------



## Distorted (Feb 23, 2014)

The last time this was brought up it didn't end so well...

But real talk, I don't exactly connect bestiality to being furry. That's like whole nother thing that is actually harmful. And then it gets mixed in with the other stuff and people make loose associations and then everyone thinks you like your dog. Like really, really like your dog. And once it's seen as such, you just can't shake the stigma and then it gets all funked up.


----------



## Malcolm the Bear (Feb 23, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I always had the feeling they do when they have pets & they make anthro x feral porn or just feral porn in general.
> The feelings are greater when I see dog feral porn or any domestic feral animal porn.
> If you don't understand what I feel & you think I'm a jerk for thinking this way...
> Imagine a father who has made loli porn "kid porn or kid x adult porn" and he has kids, just because it's drawn porn doesn't make it any less suspicious.



By the same logic, people who play a lot of violent video games practice more violence in real life.  And people who collect a bunch of art by Salvidor Dali melt their clocks.

Just because someone likes something in an artistic medium does NOT mean that they practice it in real life as well.  *To automatically assume that they do is the very definition of prejudice.*


----------



## soak (Feb 23, 2014)

Well, it is illegal...
I really wouldn't associate the two. Bestiality is just one of those fucked up stereotypes of the furry fandom which I thought we all agreed was nasty.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 23, 2014)

RedDagger said:


> I'd guess people who don't see much wrong with it, or trust the anonymity of the survey.



That still fucks with the results and makes the number seem smaller than it probably is.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 23, 2014)

Oh god these kinds of threads why.
OP, you happen to be in a fandom whose amount of porn greatly outnumbers the people in the fandom itself. You have seen a lot of things probably. But you are assuming that a lot of furries fuck their pets too. Not only is it illegal to have sex with their pets, but any person with common sense, EVEN FURRIES, knows that fucking your own pets is at least a little bit wrong. When in reality, it's actually non-furries mostly who fuck their animals.


----------



## IAN (Feb 23, 2014)

I probably shouldn't be feeling that way, but I have to admit it does really irk me inside a bit whenever I see people post pics of their pets on Furaffintiy or when I hear about them owning pets. Also when I watch cute animal videos on YT and see that the uploader is a furry.

I mean in truth it's really hypocritical of me. I can't fucking STAND to be called a zoophile/beastial. I have more respect for animals than like everything and being accused of sexual abuse to animals makes me hurt inside.


But I'll straight out admit though there have been some furs in this fandom I wouldn't dare let near my pets. And one local fur of mine comes off as a bit sketchy though he admits he hates beastiality. But whenever I down talk it he gets an uneasy look on his face.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 23, 2014)

Ok, I love my dachshund, but why would I bang it? Unless the fact it's already in the shape of a dick contributes to anything.

Don't tell me wiener dog-shaped sex toys are a thing...


----------



## Aulendra (Feb 23, 2014)

Yes. Very VERY few (Like, 2 out of the hundreds of furs I've met while being in the fandom for 11 years) but yes, it has happened. And I never wanted to speak to them again. D:


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 24, 2014)

Most of the people I have seen in this fandom who have been busted or outed as a dog diddler have been (in most cases) primarily watchers/commissioners with galleries full of porn, have a LOT of fetishes, are extremely awkward in general conversation, have very poor spelling and grammar, have little idea of how to keep their normal/fandom life apart (e.g. they request random FA members add them on their regular facebook), tend to draw in a lot of drama and often have an ED page before their sicko stuff is discovered.

Just some interesting observations. Most furries really like animals/pets anyway so I don't think it's unusual to see or read a lot about them. If I had a pet I'd probably talk about its shenanigans a lot. Zoofurs tend to be very manchild like, extremely unlikable by furry standards and are almost never artistically inclined and seem to almost be parasitic. 

That said, I think the numbers are really low. I don't trust the furry survey either. If it was a boring night on /b/ a great idea would be to go on the furfag survey and answer positive to all the weird shit. Drama.


----------



## Wither (Feb 24, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> Zoofurs tend to be very manchild like, extremely unlikable by furry standards and are almost never artistically inclined and seem to almost be parasitic.


I... I- I'm not... an unlikable man child D':

Also, *cough* namedropping *cough*, SIX. Gawsh -so unlikeable-. :u
Stereotypes are awful and people use them literally in general are awful.

And god-fucking-dammit people, if you enjoy fur pron then you enjoy it. Don't fucking lie to yourself about what it is. It's entirely pointless. What flips your switch doesn't shape your character (personality. clarifying because people are stupid.) 


> That said, I think the numbers are really low. I don't trust the furry survey either. If it was a boring night on /b/ a great idea would be to go on the furfag survey and answer positive to all the weird shit. Drama.


I answer positive to all the weird shit truthfully.
Prudes. >:u


----------



## Gnarl (Feb 24, 2014)

Now, now, I bet your just trying to create some Drama here! I am on the side of the people who believe that animal rape is still rape! 
Those poor critters must really feel betrayed and their owners should be ... why waste a bullet... it is just dumb. Thankfully in my 55 years I have only met one person who claimed to have done it. I never spoke to him again.


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 24, 2014)

I don't mean to start drama.


----------



## Carnau (Feb 24, 2014)

I just apply basic logic to it really. Imagine if you where where a pet, life is okay for a while until suddenly some asshole rushes into your room in the dead of night to come rape you. I mean it's wrong on so many levels.
Porn is always creepy once a feral is introduced, anthro related shit or not.
The question now is, how do people feel about humanXanthro art?


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 24, 2014)

Yes there are furries out there that bang fido, but its fairly rare.
Non furries bang animals too, so its not something only within the furry fandom.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 24, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Now to be fair, how many people are seriously going to admit to being a dogfucker, even anonymously?


Dude, you didn't see the MULTIPLE groups on FA dedicated to people outing themselves as animalfuckers, did you?
Seriously?
The fucking site SHELTERS animalfuckers when you report them.



Mr. Sparta said:


> Ok, I love my dachshund, but why would I bang it? Unless the fact it's already in the shape of a dick contributes to anything.
> 
> Don't tell me wiener dog-shaped sex toys are a thing...


Animalfuckers don't "fall in love with" small animals because they're too small to fuck.



d.batty said:


> Yes there are furries out there that bang fido, but its fairly rare.


It's seriously not




Consensus: anthro x anthro - whatever floats your boat
feral x feral - do you like animal dick or something?
feral x anthro - dogfucker alert, dogfucker alert


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 24, 2014)

And another thing, beastiality isnt completely illegal. There are some states and countrys that have zero laws on the subject matter. This doesnt mean Im supporting it in any way, its just not completely illegal everywhere.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 24, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Dude, you didn't see the MULTIPLE groups on FA dedicated to people outing themselves as animalfuckers, did you?
> Seriously?
> The fucking site SHELTERS animalfuckers when you report them.



I was just saying that most people who are into that kind of thing aren't willing to admit to it in any form due to shame possible backlash, etc. Doesn't stop the some that are more than willing to let their dogfucker flag fly.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 24, 2014)

Clayton, admission to commiting acts of beastiality is currently a bannable offence on FA. I don't see how that is sheltering them.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 24, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Clayton, admission to commiting acts of beastiality is currently a bannable offence on FA. I don't see how that is sheltering them.


Oooh they do, they do. They also harbor all sorts of other disgusting nitwits.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 24, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Oooh they do, they do. They also harbor all sorts of other disgusting nitwits.



Shush now, or the secret police will take you away.


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 24, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Clayton, admission to commiting acts of beastiality is currently a bannable offence on FA. I don't see how that is sheltering them.



Hmmm... HMMMM... ERGGG.. yeah I'm going to keep my mouth shut on this one.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 24, 2014)

Some do. 

This has been found and talked to death about, ran into it both through work, and through actively being someone many furries tell anything too mostly because I don't care enough to go share names. 

I made my opinions of said actions clear... It's psychologically damaging to all.


----------



## Hewge (Feb 24, 2014)

Gross.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 25, 2014)

Hewge said:


> Gross.



agreed.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

Raptros said:


> Clayton, admission to commiting acts of beastiality is currently a bannable offence on FA. I don't see how that is sheltering them.



Bull.
Shit.


----------



## chesse20 (Feb 25, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Bull.
> Shit.


furaffinity has the moderation of the roblox off topic forums
(not good)


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 25, 2014)

There are two kinds of furries in this world- ones that fuck their pets, and liars. :V


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 25, 2014)

Out of curiosity, I went to encyclopedia dramatica and looked up FA users who admitted to fucking their pets.
And some of them have made porn of Anthro x Feral.
So who knows, maybe others who draw the same thing do have sex with animals or want to but keep it a secret.
I think any artist who draws something are into it or secretly.
Unless you're super desperate for money & willing draw something that disgusts you.
So, my suspicions are kinda right.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 25, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Bull.
> Shit.


From the Code of Conduct:

*"DO NOT Discuss or Engage in Unlawful Activity* - This includes  illegal activity such as piracy, streaming copyright content, vandalism,  threats of violence, gambling and games of chance (incl. raffles  involving the exchange of real money), or discussion/usage of controlled  substances. You will receive one (and only one) warning to leave such  content off the site. Further, users admitting or found to be engaging  in bestiality or pedophilia will be removed from the site."


So, yes, it is against the rules to admit to engaging in bestiality. You can argue about whether FA has historically enforced those rules to your satisfaction, but you can't say that it's not in the rules. I'd be willing to wager, however (Obviously without any knowledge of any specific situations, as I'm not involved with FA admin stuff), that most of the reasons why you'd be saying that people are sheltered is because of the standards of proof that FA typically has and the not accepting logs/screenshots because they could be altered (I believe that's still policy?) and such.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

Jashwa said:


> I'd be willing to wager, however (Obviously without any knowledge of any specific situations, as I'm not involved with FA admin stuff), that most of the reasons why you'd be saying that people are sheltered is because of the standards of proof that FA typically has and the not accepting logs/screenshots because they could be altered (I believe that's still policy?) and such.



You have _no_ idea.
I've reported this shit to the administration only to have leaked notes released showing that the administration _warned the dogfucker that people were gathering information to report him to the police_.
That is *not* the only time that's happened, either.

So I've stopped reporting it to FA staff.


----------



## BRN (Feb 25, 2014)

Pretty sure we've been over this before. 

The proportion of people who admit to zoophilia was around 15%; the proportion of furries who admit to zoophilia was around 16%. 

It's all idle speculation to ask how many of those 15 and 16 percent actually fuck their pets, but we know for sure that 'at least some' do.

If you think bestiality is wrong and suspect someone of engaging in it, gather evidence and show it to FA staff. If you don't have evidence, quit namecalling; that kind of shit is as harmful as calling someone a rapist.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 25, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Shush now, or the secret police will take you away.


Â¤ziiiiiipppppÂ¤


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

BRN said:


> Pretty sure we've been over this before.
> 
> The proportion of people who admit to zoophilia was around 15%; the proportion of furries who admit to zoophilia was around 16%.
> 
> ...



What about the people who refrain from admitting they're zoophiles for fear of ridicule or having the furry fandom labeled a bunch of animaldiddlers?

BTW, no. Do N O T go to FA staff with evidence of animal sex abuse, go to the local police in that person's area and report it to the police, do not involve FA whatsoever.


I'm glad to see you comparing bestiality with rape, that's excellence, we need more of that.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 25, 2014)

I diddled my neighbors shepard last night.  I have proof, but I left my sketchbook over there. 
What do?!


----------



## BRN (Feb 25, 2014)

Clayton said:


> What about the people who refrain from admitting they're zoophiles frapir of ridicule or having the furry fandom labeled a bunch of animaldiddlers?
> 
> BTW, no. Do N O T go to FA staff with evidence of animal sex abuse, go to the local police in that person's area and report it to the police, do not involve FA whatsoever.
> 
> ...



People who lie about who they are for fear of ridicule need to grow up. The only time you should lie about yourself is in fear of harm. How will we ever properly research zoophilia if that entire 15% of people lie about themselves?
Zoophiles who are willing to talk about themselves are as rare and useful as psychopaths who are willing to do so, and learning about either of those groups of people can help prevent unnecessary harm.

Eh, I was comparing the effect of being called a dogfucker to the effect of being called a rapist. You know, the social side of things.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Â¤ziiiiiipppppÂ¤



Oh bby, now you'll get to see why they call me "Red Rocket".


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

BRN said:


> How will we ever properly research zoophilia if that entire 15% of people lie about themselves?


Dude, all you need to do to research animalfuckers is check out the news posts of them fucking puppies to death and adopting dogs from shelters for the sole purpose of causing them damage to their sexual organs in acts of "love".
All you need to do is check out how often they hop into people's yards, drug their pets, and rape them.
All you need to do is check out how often animal sex abuse is connected with child sex abuse and domestic abuse.
They have no boundaries, they hide out in their little groups for fear of "harm" yet will not hesitate jumping your fence, going into your barn, and raping your animals.


----------



## ACraZ (Feb 25, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Dude, all you need to do to research animalfuckers is check out the news posts of them fucking puppies to death and adopting dogs from shelters for the sole purpose of causing them damage to their sexual organs in acts of "love".
> All you need to do is check out how often they hop into people's yards, drug their pets, and rape them.
> All you need to do is check out how often animal sex abuse is connected with child sex abuse and domestic abuse.
> They have no boundaries, they hide out in their little groups for fear of "harm" yet will not hesitate jumping your fence, going into your barn, and raping your animals.


Eh hem...

http://m.youtube.com/index?rdm=ysu4q1sx&layout=mobile&client=mv-google#/watch?v=CnaVoTfkqa8

Seriously, were you the victim of bestiality or something? I mean I'm preeeeeetty sure that's impossible. Take a breath and step back, no one's coming after your precious Fluffy.


----------



## Wither (Feb 25, 2014)

ACraZ said:


> http://m.youtube.com/index?rdm=ysu4q1sx&layout=mobile&client=mv-google#/watch?v=CnaVoTfkqa8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnaVoTfkqa8 
there ya go bud. proper link 




Clayton said:


> Dude, all you need to do to research animalfuckers is check out the news posts of them fucking puppies to death and adopting dogs from shelters for the sole purpose of causing them damage to their sexual organs in acts of "love".





Clayton said:


> All you need to do is check out how often they hop into people's yards, drug their pets, and rape them.
> All you need to do is check out how often animal sex abuse is connected with child sex abuse and domestic abuse.
> They have no boundaries, they hide out in their little groups for fear of "harm" yet will not hesitate jumping your fence, going into your barn, and raping your animals.




Ahahahahaha.
Ha.
aha...
Holy shit, mate, do you have any idea how fucking stupid and paranoid you sound?


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

ACraZ said:


> Seriously, were you the victim of bestiality or something? I mean I'm preeeeeetty sure that's impossible. Take a breath and step back, no one's coming after your precious Fluffy.





Wither said:


> Ahahahahaha.
> Ha.
> aha...
> Holy shit, mate, do you have any idea how fucking stupid and paranoid you sound?




Y'all are pretty naive!
;/

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19924/IL/US/ -- dude goes to a dog shelter on a tour, leaves the tour to abuse one of the shelter dogs.
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19607/FL/US/ -- dude sexually abused his girlfriend's dog while she was at work.
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19443/WI/US/ -- guy abuses person's dog in their garage
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19398/GA/US/ -- teen abuses woman's dogs in their kennels
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19410/OK/US/ -- man abuses school's show pig in their barn
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19362/NY/US/ -- dude sexually abuses neighbour's dog
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19099/NC/US/ -- neighbour sexually abuses dog
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18846/CO/US/ -- woman catches man sexually abusing her dogs
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18737/TN/US/ -- woman finds man sexually abusing her dog
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/19356/PA/US/ -- woman adopting shelter dogs to sexually abuse them
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18509/KY/US/ -- dude sexually abusing a horse at a stable
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/17447/FL/US/ -- guy found sexually abusing his roommate's dog
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/17311/MS/US/ -- man caught sexually abusing show pigs
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/17021/FL/US/ -- dude sexually abuses family dogs
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/16769/AL/US/ -- man sexually abuses woman's miniature horse
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/16680/NY/US/ -- B&E and sexual abuse to the victim's dog
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/16530/VA/US/ -- woman finds horse injured after being sexually abused
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/16996/FL/US/ -- couple finds their horses sexually abused
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18202/MI/US/ -- man sexually abusing horses in someone's pasture
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/17998/MN/US/ -- owner finds man sexually abusing horses
http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18079/OH/US/ -- man adopts dog from shelter to sexually abuse it


and the icing on the cake:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013...zes-for-son-accused-of-drugging-raping-akita/
Dude drugs and rape's someone's pet dog


I've got 10 pages of this. Want more?

Furries who are caught sexually abusing animals deserve to be outed and punished to the most extreme extent. There's no need to continue sheltering them in the fandom.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I've got 10 pages of this. Want more?
> 
> Furries who are caught sexually abusing animals deserve to be outed and punished to the most extreme extent. There's no need to continue sheltering them in the fandom.



Well you just made my Tuesday night. This shit is hilarious and awful at the same time.


----------



## Antronach (Feb 25, 2014)

This thread's turning into some shock gallery akin to uncyclopedia.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Well you just made my Tuesday night. This shit is hilarious and awful at the same time.



I'm sorry, I should have linked the news article about a dude trying to fuck a cat and then threw it out his apartment window when it scratched him. That one is a shining example of Pet Loverz


----------



## Machine (Feb 25, 2014)

Nope. Not clicking those links. My heart cannot handle the hatred.



Clayton said:


> Furries who are caught sexually abusing animals deserve to be outed and punished to the most extreme extent. There's no need to continue sheltering them in the fandom.


BUT... BUT THAT'S INTOLERANT AND FURRIES CAN'T HAVE THAT!! Animals can consent, and you meanie hoomans don't understand! <:[



Clayton said:


> I'm sorry, I should have linked the news article about a dude trying to fuck a cat and then threw it out his apartment window when it scratched him. That one is a shining example of Pet Loverz


That's romantic as all hell.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 25, 2014)

BRN said:


> Eh, I was comparing the effect of being called a dogfucker to the effect of being called a rapist. You know, the social side of things.



If anyone should already be too aware of what little comes out of being outed as a dogfucker or a rapist, it's the FA userbase.


----------



## ACraZ (Feb 25, 2014)

Ohmahgawd I can't get over Clayton on this thread, I just can't handle it XD

Real talk, are YOU a zoofur trying desperately to take all suspicion away from yourself? Because I have never seen anyone this incredibly angry and not at all joking.

Unreal talk, I can't handle it :,D


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 25, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I'm sorry, I should have linked the news article about a dude trying to fuck a cat and then threw it out his apartment window when it scratched him. That one is a shining example of Pet Loverz



You can't just mention something like that and not link it.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2014)

ACraZ said:


> Ohmahgawd I can't get over Clayton on this thread, I just can't handle it XD
> 
> Real talk, are YOU a zoofur trying desperately to take all suspicion away from yourself? Because I have never seen anyone this incredibly angry and not at all joking.
> 
> Unreal talk, I can't handle it :,D



Nobody can be angry about the lack of attention towards zoophilia without being a zoophile in secrecy, nobody, I tell ya!
It's not as if people get angry about zoophilia because they want to draw attention towards the link between bestiality and child sex abuse, there's just no way! There's no way that people want to bring attention to the fact that bestiality has been linked to the perpetrator being abused as a child! Not a chance! We don't want the public to know about how there is a very big link between animal sex abuse and domestic violence! No way!

Get a load of yourself.

I'm pissed off because zoophilia and bestiality is viewed merely as "gross" by society, and all the human and animal victims who fall prey to these abusers get ignored, they don't exist to society. I'm pissed off because the furry fandom encourages and shelters people like this.



PastryOfApathy said:


> You can't just mention something like that and not link it.


http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18360/IA/US/

Your wish is granted


----------



## DarrylWolf (Feb 26, 2014)

I think the delightful alternate ending where the anthropomorphic Big Bad Wolf ends up jumping the broom with his human bride, Li'l Red was really a nice twist on the story. The implied bestiality that must have happened along the way is really something I don't want to think about. Come to think of it, does actually cheering for Jessica and Roger Rabbit in their trans-species relationship a sing of zoophilia?

No, I think if you give animals human-like intelligence and make them "Furries", they could take on human spouses without it being too icky, as long as the love is implied. However, in a hypothetical world of Furries, I still think the same rules would apply as in our own world about sex between "humanimals" and animals neat, no chaser.


----------



## Sonlir (Feb 26, 2014)

my old BF did quite a bit with his dogs. I don't think my brain is ever going to fully recover from that experience either.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Feb 26, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I'm pissed off because zoophilia and bestiality is viewed merely as "gross" by society, and all the human and animal victims who fall prey to these abusers get ignored, they don't exist to society. I'm pissed off because the furry fandom encourages and shelters people like this.



That seems strange to me. I always just assumed that it was 'a given' that it was a terrible, terrible thing. That it kind of... goes without saying.

Maybe that's why people don't _seem_ too appalled by it. Maybe they just say "it's gross" with the assumption that everyone agrees there's a lot stronger opinions where that came from.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

The idea that we try to actively shelter the fetish-obsessed outcasts from the rest of the internet is stupid. What are we, Rhode Island?

This is why we look bad to everyone else.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

Yo Clayton. Weren't you just defending the lady that microwaved her cat? Zoos and bestialists have mental issues too and you hate them.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2014)

Sonlir said:


> my old BF did quite a bit with his dogs. I don't think my brain is ever going to fully recover from that experience either.


Should have reported him to the police. I feel bad for you.



AlexxxLupo said:


> That seems strange to me. I always just assumed that it was 'a given' that it was a terrible, terrible thing. That it kind of... goes without saying.
> 
> Maybe that's why people don't _seem_ too appalled by it. Maybe they just say "it's gross" with the assumption that everyone agrees there's a lot stronger opinions where that came from.


Yeah, that's what most of society sees. It is terrible as a given, but the rabbit hole goes MUCH deeper and involves extorsion, rape, abuse, molestation, child porn, zoosadism, prostitution, domestic abuse, sociopathy, etc.
"It's gross" is a problem, "it's gross" can be shrugged off. Most people are too grossed out to do research into the darker aspects aside from "that's gross".



Misomie said:


> Yo Clayton. Weren't you just defending the lady that microwaved her cat? Zoos and bestialists have mental issues too and you hate them.


I was trolling while trying to make a point. I thought it was super obvious, was surprised only one single person noticed it.



Mr. Sparta said:


> The idea that we try to actively shelter the fetish-obsessed outcasts from the rest of the internet is stupid. What are we, Rhode Island?
> 
> This is why we look bad to everyone else.



Not trying to shelter them from the rest of the internet, trying to shelter them while pushing up the idea that it's "normal" and "okay" and that these people "love" animals. It's easy to hide and be accepted when everybody around you draws anthro animals fucking.
Meanwhile, they continue to try and ride on the coattails of the LGBT community and nobody says a damn thing despite LGBT being massive in the fandom.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I was trolling while trying to make a point. I thought it was super obvious, was surprised only one single person noticed it.



I thought it was trolling at first (because it seemed way out of character) but then went eh and took it at face value. *has bad troll detecting skills*


----------



## DMAN14 (Feb 26, 2014)

Of course there are those who do, but Im sure most of the people who do it arnt furs


----------



## Tailmon1 (Feb 26, 2014)

Hum intresting Question? Since Furrys can have other furrys as pets? Um Perhaps?


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2014)

Well there went what little intelligence this thread had. 
I was actually interested but, y'know, we just can't have nice things. 

Also, can I just point out the fact that _of course _the incidence of animal abuse is the only occurrences publicized in news. Like BRN said; How will we ever properly research zoophilia if that entire 15% of people lie about themselves?


----------



## Antronach (Feb 26, 2014)

Don't forget the cases that aren't reported.

Still, it's just a minority that gets publicized for what they do cause it's so shocking. I'm sure most furries are pro animal rights, whether for some weird reason or not. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a furry was behind those super sad ASPCA ads.


----------



## Rooko (Feb 26, 2014)

I tend to hate zoophilia simply because it can be construed as harming the beast. We don't know enough about animal psychology to show that zoophilia doesn't hurt the animals on a psychological level. But I suppose, if it is proven that taking proper care of the animal and making sure that you aren't causing any harm...it has the potential of becoming more accepted, unless we find other issues with it.


----------



## Machine (Feb 26, 2014)

Rooko said:


> I tend to hate zoophilia simply because it can be construed as harming the beast. We don't know enough about animal psychology to show that zoophilia doesn't hurt the animals on a psychological level. But I suppose, if it is proven that taking proper care of the animal and making sure that you aren't causing any harm...it has the potential of becoming more accepted, unless we find other issues with it.


No, it's animal abuse, no matter the circumstance,  and no one should ever condone animal abuse.


----------



## BRN (Feb 26, 2014)

Machine said:


> No, it's animal abuse, no matter the circutablewar mstance,  and no one should ever condone animal abuse.



Given current understanding, in places where attempts to understand are disallowed, sure.
Not to abuse a quote, but I've heard the phrase "Be wary of a society in which the answer to a question is given such that the answer is immutable".

Still, the world is slightly more fortunate than previous years. We investigate shit properly,  for the most part. Hence the Germans doing their research in a country where zoophilia is legal, given that anyone participating is licensed properly and regularly brings in their partners for examination - of both bodily and psychological health. Results have been fairly positive for both so far; this seems to be one of those cases in which criminalisation has had harmful effects.

That branch of research was rendered illegal last year, though. Due to international pressure, I believe.


----------



## Harbinger (Feb 26, 2014)

I've seen a few galleries, starts off as art then, oh look a photo of their dogs, thats cute. Then the adult art work comes, and then comes the series of images of their fursona's fucking their pets.
Hell the fuck no.
It shouldnt be fucking condoned in the slightest way, its just nasty as fuck. The fandom does seem to be too accepting of some shit, i was uploaded to FA the other day and why the fuck is their a category for adult babyfur art?

Anthro on anthro, hell yes
Feral on feral, ok if its just feral fursona's not based off real life animals. I guess its sex as an animal, not sex with an animal if you know what i mean.
Anthro on feral, hell the fuck no.


----------



## Jags (Feb 26, 2014)

I dislike the title of this thread. Making the two synonymous is why saying you're a furry to other people associates the two.

While I'm sure there are furries who do it, there are also furries that don't, and non-furs that do, etc. 

That said, I kinda sit in the middle of this topic. While I don't advocate boning Lassie, certainly just ostracizing everybody with the interest without any insight is a very much 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' approach.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2014)

Machine said:


> No, it's animal abuse, no matter the circumstance,  and no one should ever condone animal abuse.



Don't take me to seriously here, but i find this hilarious. So if a dolphin attempts to rape you and you give in to it, you're abusing the dolphin. 

Takes a lot of arrogance and ignorance assume animals can't possibly consent or want to fuck a human. Animal rights that restrict the animal's rights xP
But, y'know, fuck them, we're superior. That one dolphin who rolls over, displaying his sex, for his handler, is going to be -so- disappointed. We ruined his day and smashed his heart. Poor dolphin. 
You monsters >:u


----------



## Harbinger (Feb 26, 2014)

Thats not exactly the same as someone picking up their dog and fucking it though is it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 26, 2014)

Rooko said:


> I tend to hate zoophilia simply because it can be construed as harming the beast. We don't know enough about animal psychology to show that zoophilia doesn't hurt the animals on a psychological level. But I suppose, if it is proven that taking proper care of the animal and making sure that you aren't causing any harm...it has the potential of becoming more accepted, unless we find other issues with it.



It's hard to find it acceptable for people to willingly become vectors for the easy transfer of disease. Which is a big potential health risk and health cost when it comes to people forcing animals to become their sex toys. We have the known zoonoses, that under normal circumstances do not transfer cross species as easily. Then there are the unknowns that can jump, and the ones that may mutate into something that can jump.

I'd rather us not further waste billions of dollars on future research because someone couldn't stick to using inanimate toys, or you know...find an actual human partner.


----------



## furslow (Feb 26, 2014)

I guess I'm not as hardcore into the furry fandom as a lot of people (I mostly just think the art is cool and like making yarn tails and stuff for fun and I'm not into the porn aspect of it) so I guess I wouldn't be a great example but I have a dog and know a few other furries with dogs irl and we all love our dogs more than you could possibly immagine and I think that anybody who really truly loves their pets would never even consider doing anything sexual to them.


----------



## Jags (Feb 26, 2014)

furslow said:


> I guess I'm not as hardcore into the furry fandom as a lot of people (I mostly just think the art is cool and like making yarn tails and stuff for fun and I'm not into the porn aspect of it) so I guess I wouldn't be a great example but I have a dog and know a few other furries with dogs irl and we all love our dogs more than you could possibly immagine and I think that anybody who really truly loves their pets would never even consider doing anything sexual to them.



, <<< this is a comma. Plz.

Is there some assumption zooaphiles care nothing for their pets except sex objects? I can't imagine that's true for the majority.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2014)

Harbinger said:


> Thats not exactly the same as someone picking up their dog and fucking it though is it.


That fucking story x3
Since I read it before the podcast did, I got so excited when Gus started talking about it. (yes, I watched it weekly even back then >>; since the 9th(?) one I think)

Animals can consent and rape under proper circumstances >:u


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 26, 2014)

Wither said:


> Animals can consent



Know any talking dogs? Any that can sign a stat dec? No? Then it's not consent. "It was wagging its tail" and "It looks happy" are not considered consent by either the court or people with even a shred of moral decency.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 26, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> Know any talking dogs? Any that can sign a stat dec? No? Then it's not consent. "It was wagging its tail" and "It looks happy" are not considered consent by either the court or people with even a shred of moral decency.



the joke clearly flew right over your head and onto outer space.


----------



## BRN (Feb 26, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> Know any talking dogs? Any that can sign a stat dec? No? Then it's not consent. "It was wagging its tail" and "It looks happy" are not consisdered consent by either the court or people with even a shred of moral decency.





Batsy said:


> the joke clearly flew right over your head and onto outer space.



Even so, he's got a point. Without some explicit recording, it isn't consent. 
So I'm sure he'd be happy to prove where his partners signed on the dotted line.  :?

Consent is not a legal composite, except where it's dragged into the courts. Consent is a mental state, and it is > beyond < ridiculous to anthropomorphise other species, especially to prove a point about their feelings.

Rather, your issue is about 'proving' consent. Which is a legal matter, but has no bearing on ethics... Unless you actually stop your partners when they're halfway down your length,  take them off and ask whether they think you're raping them,  y'know,  just to be sure and all.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> Know any talking dogs? Any that can sign a stat dec? No? Then it's not consent. "It was wagging its tail" and "It looks happy" are not considered consent by either the court or people with even a shred of moral decency.


Dogs are lame. You're ignorant. Dolphins are horny.
I mean, I could argue you, but in the long run, you could give a shit less about what I say. You're morals are cemented in your brain by popular opinion/society, legitimacy of the claims right or wrong.

General rule of thumb that I've seen: The animal must initiate it. Sanitize yourself. Be gentle and attentive, they cannot speak so you have to _watch_ for signs of discomfort. If the animal shows signs of discomfort, ease up so they're comfortable or stop completely (preferably stop). And for the love of fuck, don't stick your dick in a species who's penis is generally smaller than your member.

Under those circumstances, I'm completely fine with it. :I


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 26, 2014)

Wither said:


> Dogs are lame. You're ignorant. Dolphins are horny.
> I mean, I could argue you, but in the long run, you could give a shit less about what I say. You're morals are cemented in your brain by popular opinion/society, legitimacy of the claims right or wrong.
> 
> General rule of thumb that I've seen: The animal must initiate it. Sanitize yourself. Be gentle and attentive, they cannot speak so you have to _watch_ for signs of discomfort. If the animal shows signs of discomfort, ease up so they're comfortable or stop completely (preferably stop). And for the love of fuck, don't stick your dick in a species who's penis is generally smaller than your member.
> ...



I sincerely hope you don't have pets.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Wither said:


> Dogs are lame. You're ignorant. Dolphins are horny.
> I mean, I could argue you, but in the long run, you could give a shit less about what I say. You're morals are cemented in your brain by popular opinion/society, legitimacy of the claims right or wrong.
> 
> General rule of thumb that I've seen: The animal must initiate it. Sanitize yourself. Be gentle and attentive, they cannot speak so you have to _watch_ for signs of discomfort. If the animal shows signs of discomfort, ease up so they're comfortable or stop completely (preferably stop). And for the love of fuck, don't stick your dick in a species who's penis is generally smaller than your member.
> ...



Saying that something involving bestiality isn't 100% black and white is grounds for a lynching young man.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> I sincerely hope you don't have pets.


I'm not a beastialist myself. I have a lizard though :3c
Zoophiliac, sure. I'm honestly just stating what guidelines I've seen.


PastryOfApathy said:


> Saying that something involving bestiality isn't 100% black and white is grounds for a lynching young man.


Eh, I've lived a good life. May God smite me down and have me suffer in my sin then sink to hell where the dead furfags yiff

It's still legally wrong though. :I


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 26, 2014)

Wither said:


> It's still legally wrong though. :I



Implying that it isn't *morally*?

Damn son, you're a lost cause.


----------



## Machine (Feb 26, 2014)

Wither said:


> Don't take me to seriously here, but i find this hilarious. So if a dolphin attempts to rape you and you give in to it, you're abusing the dolphin.


Did I ever say that?

Animals with higher cognitive functions are still animals. I don't fucking care.

Also, dolphins rape. They don't have romantic passionate furfag-fantasy sex with HUMANS, of all things, they fucking rape. Anyone _willing_ to be raped (to them, that's sex :V) by a dolphin was probably a zoophile from the start.



> Takes a lot of arrogance and ignorance assume animals can't possibly consent or want to fuck a human.


As if animals had a reason to even bother.



> But, y'know, fuck them, we're superior. That one dolphin who rolls over, displaying his sex, for his handler, is going to be -so- disappointed. We ruined his day and smashed his heart. Poor dolphin.
> You monsters >:u


Just don't blame me when a dolphin pierces your colon or tears off your dick because you wanted it to "initiate consent" with you. ;3


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2014)

Harbinger said:


> I've seen a few galleries, starts off as art then, oh look a photo of their dogs, thats cute. Then the adult art work comes, and then comes the series of images of their fursona's fucking their pets.
> Hell the fuck no.
> It shouldnt be fucking condoned in the slightest way, its just nasty as fuck. The fandom does seem to be too accepting of some shit, i was uploaded to FA the other day and why the fuck is their a category for adult babyfur art?
> 
> ...


Alllways be fucking wary of anthro x feral when the feral isn't total sparkledog lmfao
Yesterday I saw two furries favoriting feral x anthro and feral x feral alongside photos of REAL DOGS.

Yuck.



Wither said:


> Don't take me to seriously here, but i find this hilarious. So if a dolphin attempts to rape you and you give in to it, you're abusing the dolphin.



You are under the ignorant belief that if something or someone initiates sexual contact without knowing the repercussions of sexual contact, that it's consent.
That's wrong.

FYI, the animals involved in bestiality have been trained and accustomed for a long time to perform such acts. Kinda like how child pornographers groom children to do the exact same thing.



DeCatt said:


> Know any talking dogs? Any that can sign a stat dec? No? Then it's not consent. "It was wagging its tail" and "It looks happy" are not considered consent by either the court or people with even a shred of moral decency.


Sad fact is that a lot of zoophiles can't read body language well at all.







Wither said:


> Dogs are lame. You're ignorant. Dolphins are horny.
> I mean, I could argue you, but in the long run, you could give a shit less about what I say. You're morals are cemented in your brain by popular opinion/society, legitimacy of the claims right or wrong.
> 
> General rule of thumb that I've seen: The animal must initiate it. Sanitize yourself. Be gentle and attentive, they cannot speak so you have to _watch_ for signs of discomfort. If the animal shows signs of discomfort, ease up so they're comfortable or stop completely (preferably stop). And for the love of fuck, don't stick your dick in a species who's penis is generally smaller than your member.
> ...


I've heard of zoos that "follow that rule" who were arrested later on and found to have caused their dogs some dick-bleedage from doing that
Fact of the matter is, humans are dirty, our PH balance is different from that of an animal. This causes infections and burns.
The "consent" of female dogs is flagging of the tail during heat, this is what I've been told, okay well what about when the dog isn't in heat? Do you just have sex like every couple months or so? Or do you fuck in between heat sessions? Is that not _rape_? Is that not _training and accustomizing the dog to sexual contact for your own personal gain_?
So your "rule of thumb" is false.


Look at this video, it's SFW (though you'd get weird looks maybe?). It's two female dogs humping one another, the one being humped "flags" her tail.
Can you explain to me why they're doing this? Obviously they're not gaining anything from doing so, there's nothing pleasurable about humping the air.
Are they having some sort of super awesome lesbo sex or are they just acting based on pure instinct, with the rest of us noticing that doing this achieves nothing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZfZKcIsUfs


----------



## Ayattar (Feb 26, 2014)

Actually, in a village neighbouring to the one in which I was born, there was a guy who raped a cow to death. Poor animal died of a heart attack - too much stress.

Now, as for a feral x feral/anthro/human thing. If it's associated with transformation (and for me transformation is only a cheaper substitute of mind break), then I'm perfectly fine with it. But if it's just a casual sex, or even a rape - this ain't right, doesn't matter who's the active side.

Answering to OP question. Yes, I think that there are furries who are fucked up enough to rape an animal. Actually for me the whole idea of being a furry "having a soul of an animal" is... well, somewhere between funny and sick - i can 'become' furry for as much and as long, and to exactly the same extent as I become my character during RPG session. Raping animals is just going one step forward. On the other hand, I don't want to be judgemental, since with my current kinks I'm only one step from becoming a classical furry. The question, where zoophilia begins and furry ends is hard to answer, but in my subjective opinion border is somewhere near fapping to ferals.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> Actually, in a village neighbouring to the one in which I was born, there was a guy who raped a cow to death. Poor animal died of a heart attack - too much stress.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...og-owner-tied-outside-Berlin-supermarket.html




Ayattar said:


> Now, as for a feral x feral/anthro/human thing. If it's associated with transformation, then I'm perfectly fine with it. But if it's just a casual sex, or even a rape - this ain't right, doesn't matter who's the active side.


For the most part, feral x feral and feral x anthro art is just really weird. I see a lot of sparkledogs involved in that and I just side-eye em the whole time..
Not something I'd ever draw, but more furries need to be aware of furries commissioning art of them fucking their pets.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

I don't see why you guys are so against FeralxAnthro DRAWINGS.  No matter what fetish someone has they shouldn't be blamed for having it because it's not like they chose to have it. Art is a way of expressing their more dangerous/impossible/ect fetishes. It's kinda like a therapy, a way to deal with said fetishes to keep them at bay from actually manifesting. Most people with the more taboo fetishes don't have the guts to try them anyways so they find a way to cope. It's not their fault their body craves what society shuns. However that also doesn't give them the right to hurt others because of it. As long as it stays in the mind, people can do what they please.


----------



## Ayattar (Feb 26, 2014)

Actually fetishes can be developed, and I'm the best example of it. Some things that were unacceptable for me like 5 years ago now are perfectly fine or even worse - hot. Really fetishes that are not supressed or eradicated in time can only get worse. Of course, it doesn't mean that I will end up raping dogs in front of a supermarket in like 10 years, but really, it's not a way of coping with them.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

True that some can be gained and conditioned but others are wired into genetics. I remember having some fetishes as a rather young child. Even though they were suppressed most of them grew and evolved (some of them died though). Think of it as a disorder. If it's not dealt with and if it's simply ignored it most likely will get worse. Art is a therapy tool.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> Implying that it isn't *morally*?
> 
> Damn son, you're a lost cause.


I could say the same for you, but again, lost cause, aye? ~


Machine said:


> Did I ever say that?
> Just don't blame me when a dolphin pierces your colon or tears off your dick because you wanted it to "initiate consent" with you. ;3



I said don't take me seriously because I was legitimately joking, but, ok. 

And Jeez, I'm not an idiot, you can only really give male dolphins hand jobs. 


As for the rest of the posts.. Hilarious. Some of you are making bullshit up, it's damn obvious too. The sad part is that you believe what you say.

Oh! And is animal dildos morally wrong too? o:


----------



## Ayattar (Feb 26, 2014)

Well, in my opinion domestic medicine is good only for cough and cold. It's better (well... the best) to seek professional guidance, or help of your friends/family. Of course, art can be a panacea, but it should be supervised. I know, it's hard to open to other human, even face to face (the fear of being rejected and marked), but it's the only way.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

Wither said:


> Oh! And is animal dildos morally wrong too? o:


Yes they are. How dare you use even a fake animal's penis for your pleasure! Shame! Dishonor on all your family! IMMORAL! It will lead to actual sex with animals no matter what! They say they don't want real animal sex? LIES! It's just feeding their twisted personality! They must be punished!


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2014)

Misomie said:


> I don't see why you guys are so against FeralxAnthro DRAWINGS.  No matter what fetish someone has they shouldn't be blamed for having it because it's not like they chose to have it. Art is a way of expressing their more dangerous/impossible/ect fetishes. It's kinda like a therapy, a way to deal with said fetishes to keep them at bay from actually manifesting. Most people with the more taboo fetishes don't have the guts to try them anyways so they find a way to cope. It's not their fault their body craves what society shuns. However that also doesn't give them the right to hurt others because of it. As long as it stays in the mind, people can do what they please.



Like I previously mentioned, people have been getting commissions of them (anthro) fucking their pets (feral) and the artist is none the wiser.
People who *have sex with their IRL pets* are getting anthro x feral commissions done. That's the issue that I have with it.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Like I previously mentioned, people have been getting commissions of them (anthro) fucking their pets (feral) and the artist is none the wiser.People who *have sex with their IRL pets* are getting anthro x feral commissions done. That's the issue that I have with it.


What if they're actually NOT having sex with their IRL pet? It could just be an obsession with their pet that they have no desire to actually do because they think it's wrong, don't want to hurt their friend, are afraid of disease, ect. Having a drawing of them screwing their pet isn't proof of them actually screwing their pet. Sure, some might but others won't. That's like saying people drawing vore actually eat animals alive. The impossility clause is garbage because they can easily swallow bugs and small animals alive. I don't see people complaining about prosecuting the vore community. Also, google a list for the most common taboo sex fantasies. Animal sex often makes the list along with rape fantasies and the like. They might just use their own pet for the art because of a real-life bond.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 26, 2014)

My thoughts when it comes to this is, if you like yiff then you might as well be some percentage zoophiliac (or rather, zoophiliac tendencies) since "zoophilia" actually means an attraction to animals, not the act of having sex with one. To be attracted to yiff you're also attracted to the animalistic aspect to some degree, otherwise you might as well look at vanilla porn. Only like Anthro x Anthro? Perhaps only a small percentage. Like feral x feral? Maybe more. Own a bad dragon? Much more. Like Anthro x feral? You're in the high percentages.

Misomie has actually made me think about anthro x feral IN ART differently than before. If someone is doing is just to satisfy an urge they don't want to release irl then fair dos. I still don't like it, i cringe at such images and don't support them. But if they're preventing the abuse of irl animals then I can somewhat tolerate it.

As for consent, most animal brains probably dont grasp the human concept of consent. They act on instinct and hormones. Until someone creates a universal translator and the animal gives a definitive "yes", tough shit, it on the same level as rape, probably worse.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2014)

Misomie said:


> What if they're actually NOT having sex with their IRL pet?


There's no way for the average artist to know this, that's why I'm saying to be wary of it.



Misomie said:


> That's like saying people drawing vore actually eat animals alive.


I've heard rumors and seen photos regarding the vore community that I don't even want to get into.


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 26, 2014)

ED has links to FA users who admit or people found out they have sex with animals have Anthro x Feral porn.
It's even more creepy when the feral characters look exactly like their pets, it's super duper creepy when it's Human x Feral which I only saw once on FA.
I agree with Clayton being wary of those kinda pictures.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 26, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I've heard rumors and seen photos regarding the vore community that I don't even want to get into.


I have heard some stuff too. I was mainly pointing out how people defend it because of the argument it can't happen when it actually can. Like people hating on drawings that can happen but probably don't.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 26, 2014)

Clayton said:


> There's no way for the average artist to know this, that's why I'm saying to be wary of it.



To me it's like this. Best case scenario you drawing shit like that gives them a safe outlet that prevents them from caving in and actually going through with dog rape. Worst case scenerio it changes nothing and was at least worth a shot.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 26, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> ED has links to FA users who admit or people found out they have sex with animals have Anthro x Feral porn.
> It's even more creepy when the feral characters look exactly like their pets, it's super duper creepy when it's Human x Feral which I only saw once on FA.
> I agree with Clayton being wary of those kinda pictures.


You can be wary, but not all of these people want to fuck fido. Hell, some people only do it with Pokemon or other things that don't exist irl (as I said in my first post, ones with real animals irk me the most, dogs, cats, ect. The rest just make me uncomfortable).

Also ED isn't really the most reliable source...


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 26, 2014)

I never understood vore, what's so arousing about being eaten alive?


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 26, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I never understood vore, what's so arousing about being eaten alive?



Gluttony.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 26, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I never understood vore, what's so arousing about being eaten alive?


Not a vorephile here, but I believe it's partly a dominance/submittance thing and partly a like moist flesh or, something.... Someone explained it to me once and I'm trying to recall what they said. XD


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> ED has links to FA users who admit or people found out they have sex with animals have Anthro x Feral porn.
> It's even more creepy when the feral characters look exactly like their pets, it's super duper creepy when it's Human x Feral which I only saw once on FA.
> I agree with Clayton being wary of those kinda pictures.



The art with feral characters that look like their pets fucking their anthro fursona sets off massive red flags.



PastryOfApathy said:


> To me it's like this. Best case scenario you drawing shit like that gives them a safe outlet that prevents them from caving in and actually going through with dog rape. Worst case scenerio it changes nothing and was at least worth a shot.


Basically, but from what I've seen it looks like ways for them to feel secure about their abuse.



Raptros said:


> You can be wary, but not all of these people want to fuck fido. Hell, some people only do it with Pokemon or other things that don't exist irl (as I said in my first post, ones with real animals irk me the most, dogs, cats, ect. The rest just make me uncomfortable).
> 
> Also ED isn't really the most reliable source...


I'm not referring to Pokemon, and I never said all of them are into bestiality.
I merely said it's extremely weird when I see it happen, and sets off red flags when i see it


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 26, 2014)

I agree with the whole jacking off to Anthro is kinda zoophiliac.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 26, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I agree with the whole jacking off to Anthro is kinda zoophiliac.



Except, it's not. If a person is jacking off to an anthropomorphic animal creature, the person is essentially jacking of to a made up species. If a person were jacking off to feral creatures, that's a different story. I fail to see a connection. If you remove the human aspects, and make it feral, a surprising amount of furries probably would suddenly lose the ability to be turned on. The human aspects combined into these made up species play a very big role in the attraction. Human traits are a big part of a lot of these anthropomorphic critters.

I find the biggest analogy is to compare something like ...imaging if you lived in the world of Elder Scrolls where there are two actual species that are not exactly human like as much as the elves, or the orcs, or the bretons are. But these creatures  (the Khajjit and the Argonian) still have very human-like physical traits that are key turns on for human like species such as the way the buttocks, the hips, the chest, etc are formed. If a Breton is attracted to that, that doesn't make them suddenly zoophiliac. Being turned on by the four legged saber kitties of Skryim does. Same kind of goes for...people, you know, real people?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 27, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Basically, but from what I've seen it looks like ways for them to feel secure about their abuse.



Well if they're looking for justifications then I'm sure they'll find one way or the other regardless of what porn they consume.


----------



## BRN (Feb 27, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> Implying that it isn't *morally*?
> 
> Damn son, you're a lost cause.



I already covered this in a post that you read earlier. Yes, I think that was his exact and intentional implication.

You haven't made a case - Clayton is literally the one speaking sense here. You can't say "its morally wrong, argument over" when the morality is exactly what's being debated. And you can't say it's morally wrong because it's legally wrong. Lastly, you can't say it's legally wrong because it's morally wrong. 

If your position is rational at all, you will be able to follow through from 'it's morally wrong' to your reasons why, which you have to this point completely failed to share, and we've already established that "they can't consent" is bullshit in the one post you failed to reply to.

Either you show me that animals don't have the neurobiological capabilities to have feelings and emotions, and start arguing properly about consent; or you show me that animals don't have those capabilities and prove that animals aren't ethical agents at all whom have no feelings and therefore there is no problem; or you stop applying circular logic and start trying to support Clayton's 'harm' angle rather than this Victorian era 'human supremacy' drivel.

You've yet to do anything but display high school level handwaving. This is about ethics, not tabloid reactionism.


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 27, 2014)

BRN said:


> I already covered this in a post that you read earlier. Yes, I think that was his exact and intentional implication.
> 
> You haven't made a case - Clayton is literally the one speaking sense here. You can't say "its morally wrong, argument over" when the morality is exactly what's being debated. And you can't say it's morally wrong because it's legally wrong. Lastly, you can't say it's legally wrong because it's morally wrong.
> 
> ...



I really don't think I need to rationalize my stance on bestiality. If someone sticks their dick in an animal they are fucked in the head. My beliefs on this matter are not "Victorian" as you would like to believe, I am a liberal thinker and, even if it disgusts me, I am accepting of most people's kinks and weird things. Ok, why is it morally wrong? Well, it still comes down to consent. The argument of there are X/Y/Z indicators of consent or sexual interest in animals is null and void. An 8 year old can say yes and theoretically "consent" to engaging in sexual activity, however many of the same issues with pedophilia cross with bestiality. They are not on the same level of mental functioning, do not fully understand the potential repercussions or effects of said actions, and are easily led to participating in things that they might not have actually wanted to do naturally, but have been conditioned to give consent to.


----------



## BRN (Feb 27, 2014)

att said:


> I really don't think I need to rationalize my stance on bestiality.


 yes you do



> An 8 year old can say yes and theoretically "consent" to engaging in sexual activity, however many of the same issues with pedophilia cross with bestiality. They are not on the same level of mental functioning, do not fully understand the potential repercussions or effects of said actions, and are easily led to participating in things that they might not have actually wanted to do naturally, but have been conditioned to give consent to.


An eight year old is also not sexually mature, or even mentally developed. I agree they can "consent" and I also agree we can't value their consent for exactly those reasons you suggested. 

But the analogy doesn't work. A sexually mature and sexually active animal, with its full set of intellectual faculties, is nothing like an eight year old child, and in the first place will never need to 'understand the potential repurcussions'. If you want to say that a fully mature animal is not capable of consent then you should also say that all pet ownership is slavery; the animal never consented to be jailed in a home. If you want to say that 'it can't understand the potential repercussions' then you should tell me about those repurcussions. 

By those repurcussions, did you mean pregnancy? Social outcast status? 
Or did you mean potential harm? 

Zoologists, biologists, psychologists have all moved on from the 'human supreme race, animals can't consent' position. Start arguing about 'harm'.


----------



## Wither (Feb 27, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Yes they are. How dare you use even a fake animal's penis for your pleasure! Shame! Dishonor on all your family! IMMORAL! It will lead to actual sex with animals no matter what! They say they don't want real animal sex? LIES! It's just feeding their twisted personality! They must be punished!



I'm sorry! D:
Spare meee! 

Also, guys, seriously, there's nothing wrong with fantasy. Regardless of whether you agree with the act itself, people are into it. Just be glad they don't physically participate. 

"People who *have sex with their IRL pets* are getting anthro x feral commissions done" is an asinine assumption. Not saying it doesn't happen - only saying that you can't assume that's what's happening most of the time. I guarantee you that's a extremely small percentage of the commissioners

It really and truly bugs me that people so boldly title anyone sexually attracted to animals is an abomination. Fuck you. 

On the topic of Anthros... They're animalistic where it counts :u


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 27, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I agree with the whole jacking off to Anthro is kinda zoophiliac.



I always figured that the anthro character attractiveness is down to its human aspects and is on the same wavelength as like Playboy girls wearing bunny ears and fuzzy tails and shit.

But I like to keep this handy for close encounters


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 27, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I agree with the whole jacking off to Anthro is kinda zoophiliac.



Jacking off to an anthro is no different than jacking off to an Asari, a Turian, a Argonian, or a Twi'lek. An anthro is baasically a sentient being, except not human.

If you were to put an anthropomorphic cat or dog race into a Sci-Fi, it is just another race of sentient beings.


----------



## Calemeyr (Feb 27, 2014)

BRN said:


> yes you do
> 
> 
> An eight year old is also not sexually mature, or even mentally developed. I agree they can "consent" and I also agree we can't value their consent for exactly those reasons you suggested.
> ...


You probably want to reword your arguments, because it's starting to sound like you're defending bestiality. If that's the case, um, that's fucked up man.
We don't have sex with animals because we can't produce fertile offspring with them, we don't know what diseases may be transfered, and since "parts" are different sizes, harm is likely. Just look at Mr Hands. He's dead because of a "parts" mismatch.

Oh, and even if animals can give consent...pets are usually spayed and neutered, making them sexually inactive. This means they probably don't want to have sex, and therefore it's rape. Pets seem to be the number one target in the fandom.

Anyway, anthro animals are typically sentient and sapient, meaning they can most certaintly give consent (and aren't so easily manipulated into it outside of porn drawings, unlike animals). They're like aliens. So if you get off to rabbit girls, you might as well like Orions from Star Trek.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 27, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> I never understood vore, what's so arousing about being eaten alive?



I don't know, but apparently it actually DOES happen, case in point, this song, based on a true story. I can look up a translation if you'd like, but it ws written as a response to an ad in a German newspaper where a man asked for another man to come to his place and be slaughtered and eaten, and apparently he actually got a response because he's serving time in prison for the end product (and tried to sue Rammstein over the song, albeit unsuccessfully.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aZdxxRy6rE

 just so we're clear, I find vore disturbing, but then again I find quite a few of the prominent fetishes within the yiffy side of this fandom disturbing.


----------



## DeCatt (Feb 27, 2014)

Gibby said:


>











Calemeyr said:


> You probably want to reword your arguments, because it's starting to sound like you're defending bestiality. If that's the case, um, that's fucked up man.
> We don't have sex with animals because we can't produce fertile offspring with them, we don't know what diseases may be transfered, and since "parts" are different sizes, harm is likely. Just look at Mr Hands. He's dead because of a "parts" mismatch.
> 
> Oh, and even if animals can give consent...pets are usually spayed and neutered, making them sexually inactive. This means they probably don't want to have sex, and therefore it's rape. Pets seem to be the number one target in the fandom.
> ...


He doesn't strike me as someone who is supporting bestiality, more of someone who is very anti-moral and stuck on the whole "consent" argument. He should check himself before he Shreks himself.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 27, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> I don't know, but apparently it actually DOES happen, case in point, this song, based on a true story. I can look up a translation if you'd like, but it ws written as a response to an ad in a German newspaper where a man asked for another man to come to his place and be slaughtered and eaten, and apparently he actually got a response because he's serving time in prison for the end product (and tried to sue Rammstein over the song, albeit unsuccessfully.)
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aZdxxRy6rE



Armin Meiwes! 

There's a book on that guy.


----------



## Harbinger (Feb 27, 2014)

Like whats already been said, attaction to anthro's is due to the human points of attraction. I can look at the exact same character as an anthro and feral and think the anthro is attractive but as soon as it goes feral just neat with no attraction.
The animal anatomy associated with anthro's i think just brings in an interest or factor, its the human features that make up the attraction part. So when you see an anthro you get that attraction whilst thinking its design is awesome.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 27, 2014)

Harbinger said:


> Like whats already been said, attaction to anthro's is due to the human points of attraction. I can look at the exact same character as an anthro and feral and think the anthro is attractive but as soon as it goes feral just neat with no attraction.
> The animal anatomy associated with anthro's i think just brings in an interest or factor, its the human features that make up the attraction part. So when you see an anthro you get that attraction whilst thinking its design is awesome.


I disagree, partly.

Say you're into bdsm, is the addition of for example, a collar, there just to make it more "interesting"? Or does someone who's into it find it more attractive? It's most likely both. (Someone who's into that can correct me if I'm wrong).

I'l re-iterate what I said earlier:



Raptros said:


> My thoughts when it comes to this is, if you like yiff then you might as well be some percentage zoophiliac (or rather, zoophiliac tendencies) since "zoophilia" actually means an attraction to animals, not the act of having sex with one. To be attracted to yiff you're also attracted to the animalistic aspect to some degree.


If you're not attracted to the addition of animalistic features (that anthros definitely have) in yiff then what's the point of them being there? Just look at 'normal' porn.


----------



## Nikolinni (Feb 27, 2014)

Gibby said:


> I always figured that the anthro character attractiveness is down to its human aspects and is on the same wavelength as like Playboy girls wearing bunny ears and fuzzy tails and shit.
> 
> But I like to keep this handy for close encounters



Too right mate...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 27, 2014)

Raptros said:


> I disagree, partly.
> 
> Say you're into bdsm, is the addition of for example, a collar, there just to make it more "interesting"? Or does someone who's into it find it more attractive? It's most likely both. (Someone who's into that can correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> ...



Some people like exotic humans? Or exotic part humans? Your argument makes no sense to me. Furries, science fiction writers, and even video-game creators and fantasy creators all tend to be inspired by what they see on our world. As such a lot of made up species take traits from animals. That doesn't mean that gamer who find this: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Fran attractive are borderline zoophiles. That's not a feral animal.  That's a sentient, human-like species that happens to have trait that to us look like they came from bunnies.

Minerva Mink isn't a feral animal. She's essentially a female mink like person. Furries tend to live in an imaginary world where not just humans followed the  path to  being  upright,  sentient,  and  complex in language, social  structure, etc.   The tendency to create entire personas that look like human-animal-people  has most to do  with a desire to be something other than what they are and to be  something other  than human as a form of escapism.  I  can't stand  it  when people simplify the depth of what is going on by simply going "well it's just border zoophilia". No,  it's  not.  The  reason for why these characters are they way the are is  often infinitely more complicated than that simple cop out.

I  could do pages on  the real reasons why in this community, porn is the way it is. It is one of those first places where homoerotica was more acceptable. It's also one of the first communities to welcome the gay/lesbian/trans community with open arms. Furthermore, the ability commission custom characters  to your own liking means people can create exotic personas of them that are everything they wish they could be or were.

The  more you sit down and analyze the choices people make, the more human you begin to see in these anthro-animals. They are more  human than anything else. The traits of having large sexual turn on related features  has to do with human  attraction.   The tendency to show idealized bodies is attached to the  current culture where people are often not as healthy as they may wish to be, and therefore  may not  be as  desirable looking as they think they would  like  to be. People  are  often not where  they want to  be with their own bodies, even  if they are  not aware  of it. So consciously, or  sub-consciously that translates into the characters they create/identify with, and  or even jack  off to.

This comes of course from a purely non-sexual viewpoint. I have for  years stepped back and looked at the  community at different angles. It's not easy to understand things if you don't stop and spend some time  just thinking objectively.


----------



## Antronach (Feb 27, 2014)

DeCatt said:


> *pic*


2kinky4me


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 27, 2014)

BRN said:


> An eight year old is also not sexually mature, or even mentally developed.


As I've previously stated, animals are not CLOSE to the mental development of a child or human. Animals live and react based on instinct, they are unable to comprehend things like sex.
Does the sexual maturity of a human child matter in this case? Why is that even brought up? Are you aware that there have been cases of minors getting pregnant? When a child goes through puberty (which can happen as young as eight), they are able to become pregnant. 
Just because something is sexually mature or able to become pregnant does not mean that it's okay to engage in sexual acts with them.
I don't think I need to get into the fact that zoophiles literally get puppies with the specific intent on grooming them for sexual contact, do I? It starts young, when they're puppies.



BRN said:


> and in the first place will never need to 'understand the potential repurcussions'.


The animal is not able to, just like a child. To go ahead and do this anyways is rape, it's going against consent, it's exploiting ignorance for personal sexual gratification.



BRN said:


> If you want to say that a fully mature animal is not capable of consent then you should also say that all pet ownership is slavery


Things like pet ownership are not inherently harmful like bestiality is. "The animal never consented to be jailed in a home" -- wrong, that's what domestication is. Domestication is selectively breeding animals and taming them so that they prefer human contact and will willingly seek out humans for this contact.
This in and of itself is not abusive or harmful.
Now, knowing this, knowing what domestication entails, would you or would you not agree that abusing this privilege to have sex with an animal that does not have the mental capacity to understand, and has been groomed for this abuse for it's entire life not be abusive? Would it not be rape?



BRN said:


> By those repurcussions, did you mean pregnancy? Social outcast status?
> Or did you mean potential harm?


False pregnancy, bacterial infections, internal and external injuries, aggressive behaviour, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, etc.
I remember a case where male dogs had become so triggered by abuse that when they were put up for adoption and the adopters brought out a camera, they flipped the fuck out.

So that there debunks the "he is consenting" argument.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 27, 2014)

So this thread turned into "excuses to bang non-human things"

Carry on.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Feb 27, 2014)

Clayton said:


> False pregnancy, bacterial infections, internal and external injuries, aggressive behaviour, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, etc.
> I remember a case where male dogs had become so triggered by abuse that when they were put up for adoption and the adopters brought out a camera, they flipped the fuck out.
> 
> So that there debunks the "he is consenting" argument.



Whoa. That's really... saddening.

IMO, there's not really _any_ way to justify doing that shit in real life (as Misomie said earlier, people will have desires that they can't help, and I can't imagine how hard it must be to have to come to terms with something like that). Yes, true, you _could_ start to explore how the situation isn't as black-and-white as that (because it's not - a lot of the arguments here have shown that), but if you start trying to justify it, you're heading into dangerous territory.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 27, 2014)

AlexxxLupo said:


> Whoa. That's really... saddening.
> 
> IMO, there's not really _any_ way to justify doing that shit in real life (as Misomie said earlier, people will have desires that they can't help, and I can't imagine how hard it must be to have to come to terms with something like that). Yes, true, you _could_ start to explore how the situation isn't as black-and-white as that (because it's not - a lot of the arguments here have shown that), but if you start trying to justify it, you're heading into dangerous territory.



Yes, it was incredibly sad. Unfortunately the links I had for that story are down, but here they are anyways. Hopefully they'll be back up.
http://www.hopeforhorses.net/Blog/Entries/2010/7/3_INDEPENDENCE_day_for_doug_spinks_horses.html
The dogs who flipped their shit were the dogs involved in the same brothel that killed Mr Hands (lol).

Some people do have desires, and I believe that zoophilia can be either something that you develop over time or you simply grow up thinking sexually about animals. The issue is that it's not something that should ever be acted upon. These people should get psychiactric help, but we should not throw jailtime and animal ownership bans out the window due to this.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Feb 27, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> So this thread turned into "excuses to bang non-human things"
> 
> Carry on.



I heard over the net about a man who was in love with his car, and fucked it


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Feb 28, 2014)

Kitsune Cross said:


> I heard over the net about a man who was in love with his car, and fucked it



When I was in high school, I had a friend get drunk at a party and proceed to fuck my Jeep's tailpipe...thus earning him the nickname "Tailpipe".


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 28, 2014)

What does happen if a human cums in a female dog, female horse, female cat, etc?
I know they won't get pregnant, but are there side effects to a human trying to get a animal pregnant?


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 28, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> What does happen if a human cums in a female dog, female horse, female cat, etc?
> I know they won't get pregnant, but are there side effects to a human trying to get a animal pregnant?


IIRC the PH balance is usually thrown off and can lead to infections and stuff, but that's just something I think I've heard in threads on FAF. Haven't researched it or anything.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> What does happen if a human cums in a female dog, female horse, female cat, etc?
> I know they won't get pregnant, but are there side effects to a human trying to get a animal pregnant?



Like Jashwa said, pH balance can get thrown off, they can get bacterial infections, pyometra (a common one for zoophiles) and they can go into false pregnancy.
Not to mention vaginal tearing and scarring because dog genitals were not made for human penises.


----------



## Mexxy (Feb 28, 2014)

Haha, it reminds me of my friend Plur.

Don't let art bother you.

And yes, some people have sex with their animals.

It is ubiquitous in furry culture. They just can't stop poking the pooch.


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Feb 28, 2014)

sniperfreak223 said:


> When I was in high school, I had a friend get drunk at a party and proceed to fuck my Jeep's tailpipe...thus earning him the nickname "Tailpipe".



dayum, in high school there was some guy who suppously fucked a chicken, never found out if true or not, I hope not


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Kitsune Cross said:


> dayum, in high school there was some guy who suppously fucked a chicken, never found out if true or not, I hope not



That actually happens.
There's guides on how to have sex with hawks and geese out there as well.


----------



## Wither (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> That actually happens.
> There's guides on how to have sex with hawks and geese out there as well.


Ah, gawd, why?! D:
Noooo D:
That's just..
Why? :c
Clo-..cloacas... THEY'RE NOT EVEN MAMMALS, NO, STAHP ;A;


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Wither said:


> Ah, gawd, why?! D:
> Noooo D:
> That's just..
> Why? :c
> Clo-..cloacas... THEY'RE NOT EVEN MAMMALS, NO, STAHP ;A;



Animal fuckers got no boundaries. There's even snake fuckers.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Feb 28, 2014)

is it zoophilia if you fuck a burger

 is it a twisted cross between necrophillia, zoophilia and sitophilia or what


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Animal fuckers got no boundaries. There's even snake fuckers.



Snakes are like wild fleshlights.


----------



## Ronek (Feb 28, 2014)

This is the world where almost everything you think of is bound to happen somewhere unnoticed on Earth..So yeah...Zoophilia is a thing


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Feb 28, 2014)

Gibby said:


> Snakes are like wild fleshlights.



They're even self-cleaning! Man ain't that convenient.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

I have a question for anybody here who argues that initiation or compliance = consent.
As we know, consent is giving permission to do something. When we get into it, knowledge of what we are consenting to is a given. One would not consent to a police search without a warrant, correct? You must know your rights. One would not consent to getting into a car with a drunk driver without knowing how dangerous drunk driving is, right?
Now, what if we were to put someone in a situation where we required their consent for something, but exploited their ignorance of what they are consenting to.
I hand you a contract, it's written in Russian. I tell you to sign it and you don't know a single word of Russian. You know the jist of what a contract entails, it's binding, you need to agree to it, etc, so you decide you'd go ahead and sign it anyways without understanding a single word on the paper.
Is that truly consent?
Is that exploiting ignorance?


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

Consent and morals are lame defenses to not committing bestiality. Both are human created concepts and don't apply to non-human animals at all; don't apply anthropomorphic concepts on them, they're not human. Rather you should be behind the biological and physiological defenses. Those are the only ones that hold true merit.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Feb 28, 2014)

Hinalle K. said:


> is it zoophilia if you fuck a burger
> 
> is it a twisted cross between necrophillia, zoophilia and sitophilia or what



The real question is, are you still going to eat it?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 28, 2014)

Misomie said:


> you should be behind the biological and physiological defenses



And he's stated them many times


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

Gibby said:


> And he's stated them many times


And I agree with them. However people are still talking about consent and morals so I threw in my thoughts.


----------



## Crystal_the_Vixen (Feb 28, 2014)

Is it consent if the male dog wants to hump the human?
I've seen those videos on youtube where the male dog tries to hump a human.
like this one~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JfKVzuir98

By the way, can male animals get hurt by bestiality or is it just female animals who get hurt?


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> Is it consent if the male dog wants to hump the human?
> I've seen those videos on youtube where the male dog tries to hump a human.
> like this one~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JfKVzuir98
> 
> By the way, can male animals get hurt by bestiality or is it just female animals who get hurt?



Apparently it's not because the animal doesn't know sex will/can happen. 

In some cases it's the human that gets hurt when the animal is male. Often the male is less likely to get hurt though. That's why most of the horror stories (where the animal is injured) are about male people and female animals.


----------



## Wither (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Animal fuckers got no boundaries. There's even snake fuckers.


You're being a bit arrogant assuming that all are the same >>;
I mean, while we're at it, I should mention that "In heaven, all the policemen are British, all of the lovers are French, all of the chefs are Italian, all of the cars are German, and the whole thing is run by the Swiss.In hell, all of the policemen are German, all of the lovers are Swiss, all of the chefs are British, all of the cars are French, and the whole thing is run by the Italians." :I

Also, I find it hilarious that _furries_ are surprised _zoophilia_ is a thing. How could anyone find something non-human attractive! :u 
By the way, _philia_ means 'like'. Like does not mean fuck. Being a zoophile does not mean you're a beastialist. Why is that so hard to comprehend? You people act like sexual preferences accurately represents a person and their personality. 
Please, for the love of fuck, don't condemn people for something as small as that. People that like feral art are not Satan's children, and in fact, they've done NOTHING wrong.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I have a question for anybody here who argues that initiation or compliance = consent.
> As we know, consent is giving permission to do something. When we get into it, knowledge of what we are consenting to is a given. One would not consent to a police search without a warrant, correct? You must know your rights. One would not consent to getting into a car with a drunk driver without knowing how dangerous drunk driving is, right?
> Now, what if we were to put someone in a situation where we required their consent for something, but exploited their ignorance of what they are consenting to.
> I hand you a contract, it's written in Russian. I tell you to sign it and you don't know a single word of Russian. You know the jist of what a contract entails, it's binding, you need to agree to it, etc, so you decide you'd go ahead and sign it anyways without understanding a single word on the paper.
> ...



This is a lot of words to say "the only consent is informed consent."

(not wrong though)


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Consent and morals are lame defenses to not committing bestiality. Both are human created concepts and don't apply to non-human animals at all; don't apply anthropomorphic concepts on them, they're not human. Rather you should be behind the biological and physiological defenses. Those are the only ones that hold true merit.


Morals are not lame defenses against bestiality. I'm against it because it's abusive and I believe that abusing animals is wrong - these are morals.
Want my thoughts on a biological standpoint?
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...h-their-PETS?p=4621311&viewfull=1#post4621311



Crystal_the_Vixen said:


> Is it consent if the male dog wants to hump the human?
> I've seen those videos on youtube where the male dog tries to hump a human.
> like this one~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JfKVzuir98
> 
> By the way, can male animals get hurt by bestiality or is it just female animals who get hurt?



No it isn't, initiation does not equal consent because the understanding/"informed consent" part is not there.
Yes, male animals can be hurt mentally and physically by bestiality.



Wither said:


> You're being a bit arrogant assuming that all are the same >>;


Clearly you've never heard of the guides on how to fuck hawks.



Wither said:


> Also, I find it hilarious that _furries_ are surprised _zoophilia_ is a thing.


I'm not surprised at all, I've known about this long before I joined the fandom.



Wither said:


> Being a zoophile does not mean you're a beastialist.


I think we're mainly talking about the zoophiles that engage in bestiality in here.



Lobar said:


> This is a lot of words to say "the only consent is informed consent."
> 
> (not wrong though)



Yeah, but most people still do not understand what informed consent is unless you explain it.
Most zoophiles, I should say**

==============================

EDIT: Some more videos.
[yt]tIznTTQDwUc[/yt]

What you see here is called a "heat pack". It's a bunch of male dogs following around a female dog with the hopes of mating with her. You can see that the female is currently "occupied", there is no point in trying to mate with her now.
Why is it that the other dogs continue trying while she is in a mating tie? Do they think they can just hump the side of her leg and get her pregnant? Do they believe that somehow they can houdini themselves inside?
Can anybody explain this behaviour to me?


[yt]cgeFJ-6Bkxo[/yt]

This is a Lab and a husky fighting over a grouse. During the middle of the squabble, the husky starts to hump the lab.
Why does he do this? Is he just into very weird fight-sex on top of dead birds?
Can anybody explain this to me as well?


----------



## Wither (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Clearly you've never heard of the guides on how to fuck hawks.


That... doesn't change anything. :I You're still holding that umbrella over beastialists.
 Enough with the pathos argument bullshit. It's pointless and honestly annoying.


> I'm not surprised at all, I've known about this long before I joined the fandom.


Not you, mate. Sorry, I put it under your quote, but I wasn't directing that bit at you.


> I think we're mainly talking about the zoophiles that engage in bestiality in here.


I know that. You're not the only person in this thread though.


> Yeah, but most people still do not understand what informed consent is unless you explain it.
> Most zoophiles, I should say**


And now we're all stupid too :u
Please use 'beastialists'. I'd really appreciate if you'd not confuse people into thinking beastialists and zoophiles are the same thing.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

I don't get why you keep posting videos about humping animals. Instincts, dominance, hormones, excitements, ect. 

They don't have to do with the topic at hand except for the argument over the animal instigating it. However should the dog mount someone and should the dog have a raging boner, he's obviously trying to reproduce (especially with intact young males). The drive is extremely strong. 

About your morals, what are morals by the way? They very based on where you live and where you were born and how you were raised and then on what you have learned. Animal abuse is horrible but morals aren't the strongest support. If someone really wants to do something that's "morally" wrong (such as having pre-marital sex) they're going to do that. Real issues (such as disease and what-not) are much better deterrents.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Wither said:


> And now we're all stupid too :u
> Please use 'beastialists'. I'd really appreciate if you'd not confuse people into thinking beastialists and zoophiles are the same thing.



I'll use the term "zoophiles who fuck animals".



Misomie said:


> I don't get why you keep posting videos about humping animals. Instincts, dominance, hormones, excitements, ect.
> 
> They don't have to do with the topic at hand except for the argument over the animal instigating it. However should the dog mount someone and should the dog have a raging boner, he's obviously trying to reproduce (especially with intact young males). The drive is extremely strong.


They do.
My videos are showing that the argument of animals humping means informed consent is wrong. Just because an animal's testicles have descended or ovaries have kicked into estrus does not mean that the animal understands why it's doing what it's doing or understands everything about what it's doing. If an animal understood what it was doing outside the confines of instinct, it would not try to mate with a female who is in a mating tie, it wouldn't think that during the middle of a fight is the correct time to hump the other dog, female dogs would not hump other dogs, they would naturally mate outside of estrus, etc.
Just because a dog has a boner doesn't mean that he's trying to reproduce, dogs can get boners from being super excited, anxious, or even fearful.



Misomie said:


> About your morals, what are morals by the way?


Morals are standards of what is "right" or "wrong". Robbing someone is wrong, to say this, you would be applying morals. 



Misomie said:


> Animal abuse is horrible but morals aren't the strongest support.


I never said they were. If you had read my posts you'd realize that I tackle the bestiality issue from a behavioural standpoint.



Misomie said:


> Real issues (such as disease and what-not) are much better deterrents.


Like pyometra? Wouldn't using pyometra as a deterrant be considered applying morals to the argument? After all, one could easily say that causing your dog to get pyometra would be wrong/cruel/etc.


----------



## Wither (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I'll use the term "zoophiles who fuck animals".


Good enough for me :I
Thanks...?


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Wither said:


> Good enough for me :I
> Thanks...?


I'd rather use that term than "bestialists". Zoophiles like to pretend that "zoophilia" means loving, consensual, tender lovemaking sessions with pets, and that "bestiality" = holding a puppy down and raping it.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Zoophiles like to pretend that "zoophilia" means loving, consensual, tender lovemaking sessions with pets, and that "bestiality" = holding a puppy down and raping it.



same thing doe


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Gibby said:


> same thing doe


Pretty much. Except zoophilia is the sexual attraction and bestiality is the act of sex.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> They do.
> My videos are showing that the argument of animals humping means informed consent is wrong. Just because an animal's testicles have descended or ovaries have kicked into estrus does not mean that the animal understands why it's doing what it's doing or understands everything about what it's doing. If an animal understood what it was doing outside the confines of instinct, it would not try to mate with a female who is in a mating tie, it wouldn't think that during the middle of a fight is the correct time to hump the other dog, female dogs would not hump other dogs, they would naturally mate outside of estrus, etc.
> Just because a dog has a boner doesn't mean that he's trying to reproduce, dogs can get boners from being super excited, anxious, or even fearful.



I know that, but there is a difference if the dog has a boner and is mounting you vs. a dog with a boner that's jumping around or cowering. His intent is to mate. 



Clayton said:


> Like pyometra? Wouldn't using pyometra as a deterrant be considered applying morals to the argument? After all, one could easily say that causing your dog to get pyometra would be wrong/cruel/etc.


It could, but I was referring to the diseases people can get because they often care more about their own well being than others.



Clayton said:


> I'd rather use that term than "bestialists". Zoophiles like to pretend  that "zoophilia" means loving, consensual, tender lovemaking sessions  with pets, and that "bestiality" = holding a puppy down and raping it.


Zoophiles= People that like animals (rarely sexual)
Bestialists= People that have sex with animals (can also be zoophiles or not)
Zoosexuals= People sexually attracted to animals (a more advanced zoophile don't have to have sex with them)

Misusing terms just causes unneeded confusion and it's wrong. (ie Gender and Sex)


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Misomie said:


> I know that, but there is a difference if the dog has a boner and is mounting you vs. a dog with a boner that's jumping around or cowering. His intent is to mate.


Why is it that dogs don't naturally mount female dogs to mate out of estrus?
I had a dog that would get a boner while humping other dogs faces. Surely he knew that you couldn't get a dog pregnant by humping it's face?
Can you explain to me why female dogs in estrus hump one another? I linked a video of that as well. 



Misomie said:


> It could, but I was referring to the diseases people can get because they often care more about their own well being than others.


and that's wrong. Morals.



Misomie said:


> Zoophiles= People that like animals (rarely sexual)


I know the actual definition of zoophile, but the fact of the matter is that this is not how it's used anymore. I like animals, I've always liked animals. I would not be able to call myself a "zoophile" without people asking me if I fucked animals.
Kind of like how when people use the term "homophobia" (worldwide), they're usually not referring to someone who has a panic attack and collapses in fear when they see a photo of two dudes kissing.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Why is it that dogs don't naturally mount female dogs to mate out of estrus?
> I had a dog that would get a boner while humping other dogs faces. Surely he knew that you couldn't get a dog pregnant by humping it's face?
> Can you explain to me why female dogs in estrus hump one another? I linked a video of that as well.


You know the answer and I get it. It has to do with instincts and what-not. They don't choose to have sex, their instincts drive them. I don't know what the heck you're trying to argue anymore. A young intact male dog most likely mounts to reproduce because his instincts and hormones tell him to. Humping =/= consent. Consent it a PURELY human concept. I agree with you on this so why are you still at it?



Clayton said:


> and that's wrong. Morals.


It's self interest in not wanting to get sick. Morals are ok to use in an argument but they're not strong because they vary.



Clayton said:


> I know the actual definition of zoophile, but the fact of the matter is that this is not how it's used anymore. I like animals, I've always liked animals. I would not be able to call myself a "zoophile" without people asking me if I fucked animals.
> Kind of like how when people use the term "homophobia" (worldwide), they're usually not referring to someone who has a panic attack and collapses in fear when they see a photo of two dudes kissing.


Then use it correctly. Words become muddled when used incorrectly and as long as everyone continues to use them incorrectly they're remain incorrect.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Feb 28, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> The real question is, are you still going to eat it?


Depends if he likes extra mayo.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 28, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Morals are ok to use in an argument but they're not strong because they vary.



And morals are built on stuff like "hey guys maybe we shouldn't maim other people willy-nilly because it causes a huge amount of suffering" just like "hey we shouldn't rape puppies because we're causing them a huge amount of suffering", are we supposed to throw that out of the window because they're not "strong"?


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2014)

Misomie said:


> You know the answer and I get it. It has to do with instincts and what-not. They don't choose to have sex, their instincts drive them. I don't know what the heck you're trying to argue anymore. A young intact male dog most likely mounts to reproduce because his instincts and hormones tell him to. Humping =/= consent. Consent it a PURELY human concept. I agree with you on this so why are you still at it?


I'm arguing exactly that - animals don't understand sex, they are unable to consent, to have sex with an animal (regardless of who initiated it or who is being fucked) is rape.
I was arguing with you because you still continue to insist that dogs get boners and mount only to mate, when we've seen in the videos that this is not true, and that a dog doesn't really comprehend what he'd doing or tries to make sense of any of it.



Misomie said:


> Then use it correctly. Words become muddled when used incorrectly and as long as everyone continues to use them incorrectly they're remain incorrect.


I do use it correctly? In this day and age, "zoophile" refers to people who are sexually attracted to animals. When was the last time you heard someone say "I love cats! I have four! I'm such a zoophile!"?



Gibby said:


> And morals are built on stuff like "hey guys maybe we shouldn't maim other people willy-nilly because it causes a huge amount of suffering" just like "hey we shouldn't rape puppies because we're causing them a huge amount of suffering", are we supposed to throw that out of the window because they're not "strong"?


This.
If we're going to argue about things like informed consent, animal sex abuse, rape, etc, morals WILL be involved no matter what, there's just no way to avoid that.
"I believe that having sex with animals is harmful because of this, this, and this."
That's a nonsensical, blank statement if you imagine morals aren't behind it.


----------



## Misomie (Feb 28, 2014)

Gibby said:


> And morals are built on stuff like "hey guys maybe we shouldn't maim other people willy-nilly because it causes a huge amount of suffering" just like "hey we shouldn't rape puppies because we're causing them a huge amount of suffering", are we supposed to throw that out of the window because they're not "strong"?


Morals are important though. I'm just saying there are better arguments than because it's "wrong." Like I said morals vary from place to place and are invented. If you aren't taught morals they mean nothing. 



Clayton said:


> I'm arguing exactly that - animals don't understand sex, they are unable to consent, to have sex with an animal (regardless of who initiated it or who is being fucked) is rape.
> I was arguing with you because you still continue to insist that dogs get boners and mount only to mate, when we've seen in the videos that this is not true, and that a dog doesn't really comprehend what he'd doing or tries to make sense of any of it.


I've stated I know this. I was pointing out that dogs do mount for sex though, I DID NOT say always. I know they mount for other reasons, I said this if you've been reading. Don't put words in my mouth. 

Yes, they could just be excited or playing or trying to dominate, but if their instincts is telling them to mount to reproduce then they are. Don't treat it like it doesn't exist/this thought never crosses their mind.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 1, 2014)

I figured this would be sort of funny to mention here.
I'm creating a new fursona who is a scarred up Alabai. I watched a video of organized dog-fights in Kazakhstan to get an idea of where to put scars (mostly face, legs, neck, etc)
The dogs are going at one another and then at the end of the video they just stop viciously fighting and all start humping each other with boners.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 1, 2014)

So doggy fight club?


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 1, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> So doggy fight club?


German dungeon torture porn
but dogs


----------



## Wither (Mar 1, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I'd rather use that term than "bestialists". Zoophiles like to pretend that "zoophilia" means loving, consensual, tender lovemaking sessions with pets, and that "bestiality" = holding a puppy down and raping it.



Er, no. No one in any zoophilia community is like that or thinks that. You assume an awful lot.
Why can't you use the words correctly if you know their correct meaning? Is that too hard for you? Or are you just condemning zoophiles for the fuck of it because you believe they should all burn in hell? Sounds an awful lot like "Yiff in hell, furfags"... 
Despite what you might think, they're still humans with a brain and intelligence. I'd appreciate if you'd at least not refer to anyone attracted to animals as some kind of lesser beings.


----------



## Machine (Mar 1, 2014)

ITT: Defending rape and animal abuse.

Poor dogfuckers! They're so prejudiced! We should cater to their ways and let them use chihuahuas as dick-puppets until they have to be put down and do nothing but smile and nod! <:[


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Mar 1, 2014)

Machine said:


> ITT: Defending rape and animal abuse.
> 
> Poor dogfuckers! They're so prejudiced! We should cater to their ways and let them use chihuahuas as dick-puppets until they have to be put down and do nothing but smile and nod! <:[



Don't forget about cat bangers, they just want some pussy.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 1, 2014)

People here arguing about moral relativism when it comes to bestiality are making me feel suspicious. I don't know, but it comes off as defending the activity. I think there is consent with animals. You ever see a female run away from a horny male? I've seen birds do this a lot. Sometimes females do like the male's passes and accept. Other times, the male restrains the female. Seems like that is coercive to me. So there may be an idea of consent in animals. 

Next someone will tell me killing your pet for no reason is ok since murder is a human culture thing. God this fandom is filled with freaks. Like LGBT groups throwing NAMBLA into a deep, dark pit where it belongs, the fandom needs to rid itself of criminals and criminal-whiteknighters/supporters.

Oh, and if anyone uses the argument "intelligence", in that humans understand consent because we are smart, what about mentally challenged people? Guess it's all right to take advantage of them now.


----------



## Machine (Mar 1, 2014)

Calemeyr said:


> People here arguing about moral relativism when it comes to bestiality are making me feel suspicious. I don't know, but it comes off as defending the activity. I think there is consent with animals. You ever see a female run away from a horny male? I've seen birds do this a lot. Sometimes females do like the male's passes and accept. Other times, the male restrains the female. Seems like that is coercive to me. So there may be an idea of consent in animals.


Well... that's animal to animal. I really don't want to go into detail as to why animals will most likely not enjoy being sodomized by a human phallus.



> Next someone will tell me killing your pet for no reason is ok since murder is a human culture thing.


Anyone who says that is probably, no doubt, a sociopath.

What I don't fucking like are furfags whining whenever an animal is killed and then being like "HURRRR KILL THE OWNER!! HUMAN MURDER IS JUSTIFIABLE BUT GOD FORBID YOU KILL A FUCKING CAT". 



> God this fandom is filled with freaks.


I imagine psychologists would have a hell of a field day with furries.



> Like LGBT groups throwing NAMBLA into a deep, dark pit where it belongs, the fandom needs to rid itself of criminals and criminal-whiteknighters/supporters.


Pretty much this.



> Oh, and if anyone uses the argument "intelligence", in that humans understand consent because we are smart, what about mentally challenged people? Guess it's all right to take advantage of them now.


It's not okay to take advantage of anybody or anything. At all. Period.


----------



## RedDagger (Mar 1, 2014)

Calemeyr said:


> God this fandom is filled with freaks.



I'd be more willing to say it's people on the internet in general (as they're anonymous and can have their ideas confirmed by others with the same mindset) than just a few people in the fandom. 

If you were to go to other places and try the same discussion you'd likely get the same type of people coming out of the woodwork.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 1, 2014)

Wither said:


> Er, no. No one in any zoophilia community is like that or thinks that. You assume an awful lot.
> Why can't you use the words correctly if you know their correct meaning? Is that too hard for you? Or are you just condemning zoophiles for the fuck of it because you believe they should all burn in hell? Sounds an awful lot like "Yiff in hell, furfags"...
> Despite what you might think, they're still humans with a brain and intelligence. I'd appreciate if you'd at least not refer to anyone attracted to animals as some kind of lesser beings.



Sorry, most furry zoophiles who have sex with their pets*** that I've spoken to have told me that on FurAffinity multiple times. They also like to call me a "moralfag".

I didn't refer or imply that they are lesser beings, in fact, I've stated that I believe zoophilia is a natural orientation, I just believe acting upon it is wrong. Guess that makes me a moralfag



Calemeyr said:


> You ever see a female run away from a horny male?


Instincts. Notice how they don't mate outside of mating season? Ever seen a cat in heat going insane, rolling around on the floor and screaming? It's instincts. 



Calemeyr said:


> Oh, and if anyone uses the argument "intelligence", in that humans understand consent because we are smart, what about mentally challenged people? Guess it's all right to take advantage of them now.


I do not believe that having sex with severely mentally handicapped people to be okay, people get arrested for that you know.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Mar 1, 2014)

So much mention of dog boners. Im gunna go cry, out my penis.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 17, 2014)

I am back, my friends
I am back with news.
Moral of this story is: Don't let your pets out of your sight, or risk it being stolen by animalfuckers and sold into the pet sexual abuse trade! 
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/a...bestiality-suspected-in-peninsula-missing-dog

Here's hoping the dog is found safe and the long, hard dick of the law really perforates this dude's colon (lol see what I did there)


----------



## TrishaCat (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm disappointed that I missed this thread. I feel like it would've been a lot of fun to read all these when this thread was a hot topic.


PastryOfApathy said:


> Well I mean how else are you supposed to bond with your dog?


I know I'm late to the party but I love your sense of humor.



Accretion said:


> Today I learned a new term and googled "loli porn". WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!!!? I know sicko's like this exist but seriously WTF? Theres actually a term flying around for this crap?
> 
> Any who, fuck bestiality perverts and sicko pedophiles.


Loli is MUCH, MUCH more universally accepted online as something that is "okay".
I suspect that those online who like loli artwork don't necessarily want to be with actually kids (luckily).


----------



## Machine (Mar 17, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I am back, my friends
> I am back with news.
> Moral of this story is: Don't let your pets out of your sight, or risk it being stolen by animalfuckers and sold into the pet sexual abuse trade!
> http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/a...bestiality-suspected-in-peninsula-missing-dog
> ...


...Kangals are one of my favorite dogs, too.

Fuck this fucking planet.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 17, 2014)

Machine said:


> ...Kangals are one of my favorite dogs, too.
> 
> Fuck this fucking planet.



I bet the poor thing was snagged and sold into the sex abuse ring, given the fact that the dogs found on the animal brothel property were Boerboels as well.
Honestly, I'm wondering why the hell someone would let someone like that guy live on their farm around animals.


----------



## Sweetheartz22 (Mar 17, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> Ok, I love my dachshund, but why would I bang it? Unless the fact it's already in the shape of a dick contributes to anything.
> 
> Don't tell me wiener dog-shaped sex toys are a thing...



.....BadDragon. That is all.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 17, 2014)

Sweetheartz22 said:


> .....BadDragon. That is all.



dog-wiener shaped sex toys


----------



## IAN (Mar 18, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I am back, my friends
> I am back with news.
> Moral of this story is: Don't let your pets out of your sight, or risk it being stolen by animalfuckers and sold into the pet sexual abuse trade!
> http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/a...bestiality-suspected-in-peninsula-missing-dog
> ...


 How much money would you lay down that this guy's a furry? On FA as well?

I really shouldn't but, I'm laying $50 down.


----------



## Volkodav (Mar 18, 2014)

IAN said:


> How much money would you lay down that this guy's a furry? On FA as well?
> 
> I really shouldn't but, I'm laying $50 down.



He's not a furry (IIRC).


----------



## IAN (Mar 18, 2014)

Clayton said:


> He's not a furry (IIRC).


 That's what we'd like to think, but I've noticed a trend of each time there's a beastiality case in the news we later find the criminal has an FA account with fursona, usually feral porn, etc.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

My own personal belief is that bestiality is wrong. I even think that homosexuality is wrong, too. I think the right way to live is to realize that the place for sex is in marriage and only for procreation.

That being said, it's hard to live up to that standard, right? After all, people have urges that they want to fulfill. Just about any homosexual will give you 100 dumb reasons why it's OK to do what they do. Similarly, any zoosexual can give you reasons that justify their behavior as well: "if its OK to artificially inseminate animals, why is it not OK to have sex with them? This is not about animal welfare, it's about sexual societal taboos." or "does a horse consent to drawing a carriage, or does a dog consent to sniffing for drugs all day? So why should it matter whether they consent to sex?"

At the end of the day, being a zoosexual is 100% completely justifiable... if you're a *liberal* with no morals.  It's so hypocritical for all of you with your homosexuality and diaper fetishes to be so against bestiality.

All of this sexual perversion stuff, whether its infantilism, bestiality or homosexuality, is really all the same thing.  For you to say that bestiality is wrong but homosexuality is OK is basically saying "I smoke crack, but I would NEVER touch heroin."

[video=youtube;qcqOgnQyXp4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqOgnQyXp4[/video]

^ this


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 30, 2014)

Didnt they already shut down your other thread, don't you take a hint or are you aiming for the banhammer


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Didnt they already shut down your other thread, don't you take a hint or are you aiming for the banhammer



If you read the thread, you will see that they initially locked this one, then decided to unlock it.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 30, 2014)

...ah frick this is what I get for not reading stuff all the way through


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> ...ah frick this is what I get for not reading stuff all the way through



Well, on this topic, I admit to trolling a little bit.  Part of the reason why is because I'm torn between what I've been told is acceptable sexual behavior and what I see going on these days.

Sure, fetishy stuff and promiscuity can be fun, but I often wonder if it's *wrong*.


----------



## BRN (Oct 30, 2014)

Eh, it's about saying "unorthodox sex is wrong", it's saying that "nonconsensual sex is wrong".

So, your first post back on the previous page is coming at the argument from a nonsensical angle.


----------



## Joey (Oct 30, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> If you read the thread, you will see that they initially locked this one, then decided to unlock it.



If you keep making awkward, cringy posts it will probably get locked again. ...Like several other threads you've posted in.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

BRN said:


> Eh, it's about saying "unorthodox sex is wrong", it's saying that "nonconsensual sex is wrong".
> 
> So, your first post back on the previous page is coming at the argument from a nonsensical angle.



Well, I see what you're saying.  But the zoophiles of the internet say the darndest things and even argue that animal sex can be consensual.

For instance, I've heard people say that animals consent nonverbally.  Then they mention that people who are deaf/mute can consent to sex nonverbally, and hence, animals don't need to be able to speak in order to consent to sex with humans.

The thing is, zoosexuals seem to make a lot of the same arguments that homosexuals make.  My typical reaction though, is that I don't care about their arguments.  I don't want to hear their arguments for bestiality, as I think it's wrong outright and can't be justified.  However, I also feel the same way about homosexualism, alcoholism, gambling, drug use, and every other vice.

If animals really are consenting to sex in some capacity and aren't hurt by this, should it really be considered _at the same level_ as rape or animal cruelty?  Even if it's not consensual, aren't there plenty of other things that are just as bad or worse that are legally done to animals every day? Should we really be putting people in jail for simply sexing up their dogs?

I don't really feel that there should be punishment for people engaging in vices, as long as no one else is hurt. I think people should be able to logically say, "Yeah I sleep around with dudes and chicks, smoke a little weed, snort a little cocaine, fuck the dog, whatever, and I know it's all bad. But I won't let these vices take over my life. Someday I'll marry someone of the opposite sex and become a more productive and stable member of society, and I'll be part of a family with a mom and dad that raises children like a normal person."


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 30, 2014)

So let's see. Nanakiwolf thus far in his time here has compared being a furry to Transgender. And now is comparing Zoophilia to Homosexuality. 

Man, could you bring some more b8  m8? I need to go fishin' tomorrow before the season gets too cold.


----------



## Joey (Oct 30, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> derp



So you're homophobic zoophile huh? That's real fuckin' neato.



RedSavage said:


> Man, could you bring some more b8 m8? I need to go fishin' tomorrow before the season gets too cold.



He's about as genuine and believable as Criss Angel.


----------



## Joey (Oct 30, 2014)

sorry, double post


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

I think you guys are missing the point.

I'm not trolling, I'm selling snowballs in hell.

Did you watch that video I posted on the last page?  That kid famously said "It's fun to do bad things."  It's funny because it's true.

One of the pleasures in my life comes from knowing the difference between right and wrong, and then choosing to do the wrong thing.  Doing wrong is so much more fun when you know what you're doing.

That's why I'm so excited to extend what the homosexual movement did to even more forms of perversion for people to wallow in.  To me, zoophilia is a vice that we can promote.  What do I get from promoting zoophilia as a good thing?  I get to laugh at all the poor bastards who fall for it and do it thinking it's OK!

These vices make the population more docile, because they spend more time being a homosexual, a zoophile or a drug addict than they do being a good person.  Promote homosexuality, drug use and zoophilia to make people more dumbed down and less able to stand up to the system.  This will open the door to even darker, more entertaining things.


----------



## Joey (Oct 30, 2014)

Alright hun, _I think it's time to stop posting._


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 30, 2014)

_*Try Hard 2: Try With a Vengence*_


----------



## Joey (Oct 30, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> _*Try Hard 2: Try With a Vengence*_



_*James Bond: Try Another Day*_


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> _*Try Hard 2: Try With a Vengence*_



Don't be a buzzkill.  I just wanna smoke with cigarettes and do hoodrat stuff with my friends.


----------



## Joey (Oct 30, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Don't be a buzzkill.  I just wanna smoke with cigarettes and do hoodrat stuff with my friends.



Edgy.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 30, 2014)

Nanaki, I don't think you need to hang around to sell the point about bestiality being animal abuse. Most people already agree that it is, we don't need further arguments to boost what proof we already have.

Stick it in a sock or another human, buy some dildos, but for Christ's sakes leave animals alone


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 30, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Nanaki, I don't think you need to hang around to sell the point about bestiality being animal abuse. Most people already agree that it is, we don't need further arguments to boost what proof we already have.
> 
> Stick it in a sock or another human, buy some dildos, but for Christ's sakes leave animals alone



You're not understanding my point. Zoosexuality is wrong because it involves sex that isn't between a married man and woman for the purposes of procreation.  Zoosexuality is wrong for the same reason that homosexuality is wrong.

However, society has made the decision to take morality out of the legal system and lawmaking process. Some people argue that animals can consent to sex. And even if they couldn't, there are plenty of things that are done to animals every day that are as uncomfortable for the animals or worse, such as artificially inseminating animals or forcing them to work all day.

Therefore, zoosexuality should be decriminalized since it is not abusive in some circumstances and because morality is no longer a factor in what is and is not illegal.

Zoosexuality is a vice that is in the same category as homosexuality and drug use.  It is hypocritical and inconsistent to legalize homosexuality while making drug use and zoosexuality illegal.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 31, 2014)

Having sex outside of procreation is wrong
I am boring, I have vanilla sex with my loving housewife, but only when I wish to have another child
Because of this, we rarely have sex
We have like 12 kids though, to help us out on the homestead


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Having sex outside of procreation is wrong
> I am boring, I have vanilla sex with my loving housewife, but only when I wish to have another child
> Because of this, we rarely have sex
> We have like 12 kids though, to help us out on the homestead



Here's what I think is going to happen someday.

One day, you're going to be 60 years old. Your fake "gay marriage" of thirty-something years will have left you unfulfilled, but you'll still think you're happy because the Democrats will still be telling you that the life you chose is a normal way to live. You will have had a biological child with a surrogate mother, from whom you've ripped the child away to fulfill your fantasy that "it's a real marriage".  And your child will decide that she wants to marry a dog because zoosexuality is the latest fad, and she thinks she was "born that way".  Meanwhile, your health will be deteriorating, and even though you've worked hard your whole life, you are unable to see a doctor right away because you're on a waiting list (OBAMACARE).

So, six months to a year later, you finally do get to see a doctor.  He sucks at what he does, though, since all of the good doctors have been chased out of the profession, or work privately for rich people.  He gives you a pill for those stomach pains you've been having.  The pill seems to work, and the pain goes away as long as you keep taking the pills.

Everything seems to be going just fine.  Your daughter graduates college, gets a degree, buys a male puppy... behind closed doors, you tell your "husband" what you really think of your daughter because you don't have the strength to tell her yourself, but he convinces you that everything's OK. "That's just the way she is," he says. "We need to accept her for the person she is and not tell her who she should be."  You finally "get over" your daughter's zoosexuality, but you never really respect her.

The puppy your daughter bought is now five years old, and she brings the dog over to your house for Christmas dinner. The dog, who you've noticed is more aggressive than an average dog, is especially aggressive tonight.  As you put the Christmas meal on the dinner table, the dog growls at you expecting to be given some of the food.  You scold the dog, but that doesn't work.  The dog jumps on you and pushes you to the ground.  The pain in your stomach comes back and becomes so intense that you have to be rushed to the hospital.

It turns out that the pain in your stomach all those years ago was due to an untreated liver problem.  The incompetent Obamacare doctor gave you the wrong treatment, and your liver has been getting worse and worse this whole time since that pill you've been taking only masked the problem by treating the symptoms.  Your untreated liver problem caused your gall bladder to become infected, and your gall bladder burst inside your chest cavity when the dog pushed you over.

You're rushed to surgery to remove your gall bladder, and when you wake up, the doctor informs you that you are in desperate need of a liver transplant to save your life.  Unfortunately, you're told that you will be unable to get the liver transplant due to the "doctor's decision".  You get angry and ask why the doctor decided that you can't have a liver transplant.  You assume there must at least be a waiting list for a transplant.  The doctor tells you and your "husband" that there's nothing he can do and says it was decided by an "ethics board", but it's really a death panel.  Apparently, the death panel decided that you will not be allowed to have a liver transplant under any circumstances because all available livers for transplant should go to younger people who have more life to live.

You cry when the doctor tells you that you have three months to live, and your "husband", who you never really loved, says "It's OK honey.  Don't feel bad.  There's lots of young people out there who can benefit from this liver transplant.  We've lived good lives. Wouldn't you want that liver to go to someone like your daughter instead of you?"

Two and a half months pass.  By this point, you're no longer able to get out of bed.  You can just feel the life draining from you with every new breath.  Even though you're bedridden, your "husband" still goes to work everyday, as he can't retire due to the bad economy. Your daughter visits, with that pesky dog, but the whole purpose of her visiting seems to revolve around getting you to accept her zoosexuality rather than consoling you in your final days.

Your final hour comes as you're laying in your bed.  You ring the bell your "husband" placed next to your bed to signal your "family" to come. That strange man you call your husband doesn't seem to be all that sad, and after saying your goodbye's to him and your daughter, you hold their hands and close your eyes.  The pain is unbearable.  As your body shuts down, you begin to think about your life.  In these last few moments, you can only be honest with yourself.  You think about your "marriage" and your zoosexual daughter, and you realize what a joke your life is.  For some reason, you remember that one time you talked to someone on FurAffinity Forums, and you remember mocking people who strive to live honorable, virtuous, good lives.  You realize that you gave up a family and an honorable life for a few decades of pointless pleasure, and although you feel you were robbed of these things, you know that you chose it yourself by gullibly buying what those huckster, snake-oil salesman Democrats were selling you.  You take your final breath, and as you drift out of consciousness, your last thought is, "I wish I could be out on that homestead."


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Oct 31, 2014)

...Wut?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 31, 2014)

y'all postin' in a troll thread


----------



## Misomie (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> I don't want to hear their arguments for bestiality, as I think it's  wrong outright and can't be justified.  However, I also feel the same  way about homosexualism, alcoholism, gambling, drug use, and every other  vice.
> 
> 2. I really like drugs. I don't like to look like a druggie. I'm not  really a druggie anyway. The last time I had an illegal drug besides  marijuana was about four years ago. I haven't even had any marijuana for  almost six months now, too. But drugs can be really great and  mind-expanding.



If you're going to troll, at least keep your facts straight.


----------



## BRN (Oct 31, 2014)

Man if my daughter bought a puppy I'd be all over that


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> It is hypocritical and inconsistent to legalize homosexuality while making drug use and zoosexuality illegal.


 Sand-slave morality is no morality at all. We are, in all ways imaginable, superior to the rag-swaddled filth that invented this shit, and owe them nothing but the utmost contempt. Any opportunity to erase a bit of their savagery from the modern world should be seized at once.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Oct 31, 2014)

Apparently none of that was a copypasta according to Google. If I'm right, I am actually 100% legitimately impressed. Like this man deserves a round of applause because man that shit is 10/10 bait. Well done lad. Well done...


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Orangutans and dolphins have raped people before. Those orangutans and dolphins were definitely consenting. 

But in all seriousness, abusing animals is a considerable issue, but only part of the picture- and one I feel ambivilent about, because surely no animal wants to be eaten, and practically none of you care about the animal's point of view in that example. 
 Most of our species' most awful diseases, like measles, HIV, SARS, Ebola, Influenza and so on, are derived from animals. 

When people are in close contact with animals, such as having sex, they represent a huge risk which we should not approve of. This also applies to people who let their pets on the furniture, or sleep in the bed. You are a huge germ risk and we should all disapprove of you, if you do this.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Here's what I think is going to happen someday.
> 
> One day, you're going to be 60 years old. Your fake "gay marriage" of thirty-something years will have left you unfulfilled, but you'll still think you're happy because the Democrats will still be telling you that the life you chose is a normal way to live. You will have had a biological child with a surrogate mother, from whom you've ripped the child away to fulfill your fantasy that "it's a real marriage".  And your child will decide that she wants to marry a dog because zoosexuality is the latest fad, and she thinks she was "born that way".  Meanwhile, your health will be deteriorating, and even though you've worked hard your whole life, you are unable to see a doctor right away because you're on a waiting list (OBAMACARE).
> 
> ...



Holy shit this is fucking gold right here. 
Like---I'm not even mad. 
This was the drop dead most hilariously glorious piece of bait I have ever fucking read.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 31, 2014)

Fun fact: zoophilia is legal in New Mexico.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

jtrekkie said:


> Fun fact: zoophilia is legal in New Mexico.



Zoophilia is legal pretty much everywhere- because that would be a thought crime. _Bestiality _is legal in half the US. 

Your country is weird.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Zoophilia is legal pretty much everywhere- because that would be a thought crime. _Bestiality _is legal in half the US.
> 
> Your country is weird.



Meh it's illegal federally. And in some states illegal too. With some others it just... isn't. 
To be fair, cannabis is also illegal federally. So. 

You have to sort of be on par with the whole states-vs-federal law thing.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 31, 2014)

I don't want to give the impression that it's considered acceptable behavior. It's not.


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Here's what I think is going to happen someday.
> 
> One day, you're going to be 60 years old. Your fake "gay marriage" of thirty-something years will have left you unfulfilled, but you'll still think you're happy because the Democrats will still be telling you that the life you chose is a normal way to live. You will have had a biological child with a surrogate mother, from whom you've ripped the child away to fulfill your fantasy that "it's a real marriage".  And your child will decide that she wants to marry a dog because zoosexuality is the latest fad, and she thinks she was "born that way".  Meanwhile, your health will be deteriorating, and even though you've worked hard your whole life, you are unable to see a doctor right away because you're on a waiting list (OBAMACARE).
> 
> ...



Jokes on you because I don't want to get married, I'd never have a kid, I'm not American, I'd gladly donate all of my organs, bones, and skin, and if I had a kid who had sex with animals I'd have them arrested and/or forced into therapy.

I do plan on living in the middle of nowhere on a "homestead" though. But I wouldn't have 12 God-Fearing children helping me like slaves. I'd have like 12 chickens instead and like 5 LGDs that attack anybody who comes nearby.
Dream life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Why did this person just spend half an hour making a  tl;dr ?


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Why did this person just spend half an hour making a  tl;dr ?



This person has no power in their life. Either they live in a household where he is subjugated to the power trip whims of another person, or they work a job in which they follow endless orders by some anonymous entity of authority which dictates their every reaction. All day, every day, this person spends their own time--their life--following the will of others. 

But--when on the internet, this person has found that by making controversial and outlandish claims, condescending, ridiculous, harmful, or otherwise, he can entice a reaction from those inclined to take it personally or seriously. They garner the slightest bit of self-fulfillment and illusion of power by believing that, somewhere out there, a person has spent energy responding to their words. They take to heart the personal power one gives another person when they allow emotions to equate a reaction. 

What this person, and other like minded individuals, don't understand, is that people are inherently self-centered and unmindful of other people's opinions or statements outside of vague, casual enforcement of the semantics one believe in. The responder doesn't spend all day bothered by their comments. The responder does not worry or obsess over outlandish and offense-worthy comments. As soon as they get off the computer, go to sleep, or even go to another website, it's out of sight and out of mind. They are back in their own heads worrying about their own problems. If they're gonna get laid or if they're gonna make enough money to pay the bills. 

Some types see this intentional incitation of people online as merely a hobby. They do not expect or even try to incite reaction, necessarily, but instead ridicule ideas or other people in a sense of parody or satire. Others, however, go to great lengths to lace their words in a way that begs someone to be upset. Begs someone to be offended. Because if they can do that, just see that one person doesn't like what they have to say, then they have garnered some amount of imaginary power in their sad lives. 



Conversely---they could just be really, _really_ fucking bored.


----------



## Misomie (Oct 31, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> Meh it's illegal federally. And in some states illegal too. With some others it just... isn't.
> To be fair, cannabis is also illegal *federally*. So.



I read it as fedorally for some reason. XD



Fallowfox said:


> Zoophilia is legal pretty much everywhere- because that would be a thought crime. _Bestiality _is legal in half the US.
> 
> Your country is weird.



When it's merely in the head, it's more of a fetish or rather one of the taboo fantasies. Nothing wrong with it then. Unless it's acted upon; then that person is scum. It's kinda similar to a lot of the other taboo fantasies that'd be awful if acted out. It'd be awful if thoughtcrimes were real though and a were punishable offense. Thinking would be so freaking dangerous. 

And yes, this country is weird. Bestiality should be illegal everywhere in such a developed country. That's something I'd expect from a third world country, not an educated first world one.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 31, 2014)

Its mostly because nobody wants to be the one to introduce that bill. You _probably_ wouldn't have any trouble passing it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Misomie said:


> I read it as fedorally for some reason. XD
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean 'Unless it's acted upon; then that person is scum'. Otherwise you are implying that people, who _don't_ have sex with animals, are scum.



jtrekkie said:


> Its mostly because nobody wants to be the one to introduce that bill. You _probably_ wouldn't have any trouble passing it.



Such bills have always been passed immediately, whenever introduced, because nobody dares oppose them.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Why did this person just spend half an hour making a  tl;dr ?



You're referring to my masterfully crafted piece of bait that turned out to be overwhelmingly successful.

Although it should be obvious to you, I have exposed a notorious zoophobe troll for exactly what he is.

Clayton not only shows himself to be bigoted against religious people, but he also shows that he has no moral compass of his own.  Instead of making statements about why zoosexuality is immoral or unacceptable, he merely makes reactionary statements and condemns his would-be child on the basis that he believes zoosexuality is a mental illness that can possibly be cured.

As you can clearly see, this is type of anti-zoosexual sentiment is identical to that of an anti-homosexual homophobe: zoosexuality is considered unacceptable simply because it is taboo and no logical reasons or arguments are given.

So, my masterfully constructed piece of bait has shown that even those most opposed to zoosexuality have no logical arguments to support their position.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> You're referring to my masterfully crafted piece of bait that turned out to be overwhelmingly successful.
> 
> Although it should be obvious to you, I have exposed a notorious zoophobe troll for exactly what he is.
> 
> ...



I already explained why intimacy with animals is harmful; this isn't a point of contention.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Consent and morals are lame defenses to not committing bestiality. Both are human created concepts and don't apply to non-human animals at all; don't apply anthropomorphic concepts on them, they're not human. Rather you should be behind the biological and physiological defenses. Those are the only ones that hold true merit.



Fallowfox, I've dug up this old gem for you.

So, this argument states that opposition to zoosexuality shouldn't be held on the basis of the animal's consent or morality.  The important issue is that animals aren't biologically designed to have sex with humans.  That's the argument being presented here.

Well, then homosexuality should be condemned as well, as an anus clearly isn't designed for a penis to be inserted there.

This argument clearly fails the test.  I'm struggling to find any good arguments in this thread against zoosexuality.


----------



## RedSavage (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> I'm struggling to find any good arguments in this thread against zoosexuality.



You can get sicko gross diseases. 

/end thread


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

nanakiwolf13 said:


> Fallowfox, I've dug up this old gem for you.
> 
> So, this argument states that opposition to zoosexuality shouldn't be held on the basis of the animal's consent or morality.  The important issue is that animals aren't biologically designed to have sex with humans.  That's the argument being presented here.
> 
> ...




We [ well not me ] eat animals despite the fact they would object, so the animal's consent is indeed irrelevant. 

We should not have sex with animals because it is a tremendous disease risk. Having sex with humans is much less risky, and consensual too, so two legs good, four legs bad.


----------



## nanakiwolf13 (Oct 31, 2014)

Hm, I think you guys might be on to something.

So, if the reason that sex with animals is banned is due to the disease spreading potential, then shouldn't the punishment reflect this?  Shouldn't the punishment then be similar to situations where people run the risk of spreading disease due to neglect or willful bad behavior?

For instance, let's say that some nurse somewhere is grossly negligent on the job and spills a bunch of needles all over the hospital.  Maybe someone gets infected from these used syringes.  I don't know what the punishment is for this, but it's definitely not multiple years in prison.

Should the practicing zoosexual be treated the same way as the negligent nurse?

For a more extreme example, let's say someone who is informed they have Ebola is ordered to stay in their home and self-quarantine.  The person decides to leave their house, knowing they have Ebola and were ordered to stay inside, and thus commits a crime.  In this case, the crime committed would be contempt of court, and it could include substantial jail time.

So, maybe the practicing zoosexual should be treated the same as the quarantine-violating Ebola patient?

Do you think these are valid comparisons?  Also, would these laws only apply when the animal in question actually has a disease?


----------



## Volkodav (Oct 31, 2014)

"Clayton not only shows himself to be bigoted against religious people, but he also shows that he has no moral compass of his own. Instead of making statements about why zoosexuality is immoral or unacceptable, he merely makes reactionary statements and condemns his would-be child on the basis that he believes zoosexuality is a mental illness that can possibly be cured."

I don't think I need to even state why it's unacceptable considering I've *ALREADY FUCKING DONE THAT IN THIS THREAD*

Zoophilia cannot be cured but oftentimes someone has sex with animals due to underlying mental issues or trauma. These people should seek out therapy. Based on what I've seen, many zoophiles were sexually abused as children. They need therapy.
Open your damn eyes.



Also, I'd like some sources on dolphins and orangutans raping people. I don't believe a dolphin could forcefully have sex with a human  I also don't believe I've ever heard of a case of a human having sex with an orangutan, barring the case of Pony the orangutan, which was NOT by ANY means consensual.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 31, 2014)

Clayton said:


> "Clayton not only shows himself to be bigoted against religious people, but he also shows that he has no moral compass of his own. Instead of making statements about why zoosexuality is immoral or unacceptable, he merely makes reactionary statements and condemns his would-be child on the basis that he believes zoosexuality is a mental illness that can possibly be cured."
> 
> I don't think I need to even state why it's unacceptable considering I've *ALREADY FUCKING DONE THAT IN THIS THREAD*
> 
> ...



The dolphin comment turns out to be based on a myth. 

Instances of animals 'forcing copulation' with animals outside of their species are, however, commonplace.
Male otters forcing copulation with seals: http://news.discovery.com/animals/the-other-side-of-otters.htm


and, yes, Orangutans going after humans:

"While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly  seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his  erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but  Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the  orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that  'they have a very small penis' ... though the orangutan lost interest  before penetration took place."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour


----------



## Mentova (Oct 31, 2014)

I'm going to go ahead and close this since it has pretty much turned into a clusterfuck


----------

