# So if the dog comes up and starts humping you...



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

...is it still wrong?  I mean from like an ethical standpoint.

I'm still not clear on this and would like to form an unbiased and objective moral stance on the subject.  As such, please only post relevant arguments that can at least be substantiated.


----------



## Shino (Jul 30, 2009)

That depends. Are we talking leg hump or the good kind of hump?

inb4lock


----------



## Rytes (Jul 30, 2009)

why are you letting a dog hump you?


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Shino said:


> That depends. Are we talking leg hump or the good kind of hump?



I'll assume the phrase "good kind" is subjective here but I was talking about something that eventually leads to intercourse.



Rytes said:


> why are you letting a dog hump you?



I'm not.  As per my original post I'm simply trying to form an unbiased ethical standpoint on the subject and would like more facts to substantiate one.

I do have friends who like to hump dogs, though.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

i would push him off because i don't want dog spunk on my leg.

but, on morals, i wouldn't call that "wrong" because that has no human intervention or guidance. now, if you were to reach down and start jerkin' his dick, that would be wrong because that's you jumping in.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> i would push him off because i don't want dog spunk on my leg.
> 
> but, on morals, i wouldn't call that "wrong" because that has no human intervention or guidance. now, if you were to reach down and start jerkin' his dick, that would be wrong because that's you jumping in.



Keep in mind by humping I mean the old "in-out in-out" -- I don't mean humping a leg.

But like...  If the dog wants to get off wouldn't jerking it off be a good thing to do?  If you could manage to do it without puking, that is.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 30, 2009)

Oh fuck, here we go again.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 30, 2009)

Absolutely, I'll shove the dog back and mace it if neccessary.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

D: 

Here's my view on it: If you can't have babies with it under normal circumstances (as in, you're both completely normal fertility wise, and haven't got any tubes tied or anything), then you shouldn't be fucking it. (excluding homosexuals to make my point here but there's nothing wrong with homos C: )

So:

Human x human = baby
Human x Dog = No baby

Thus Human x Dog = bad 

If it was just a leg hump, it would be sick if you let him hump your leg, but not...as wrong.


----------



## Azure (Jul 30, 2009)

Yes.  Cuz it's gross.


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 30, 2009)

HOLY VERTICAL VAGINAS BATMAN, WE HAVE ANOTHER DOG FUCKING THREAD!


----------



## Takun (Jul 30, 2009)

So if a pinecone falls from a tree and lands in your ass is that morally wrong or are  you still pure in Jesus's eyes?


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

You see, this is my problem.  I never get any responses to this except "You shouldn't because it's gross" or "it's not natural because you should only have sex with things in order to make babies" or something else like that...

I'm sure someone will have _something_ convincing...  Eventually...

Maybe?


----------



## Hir (Jul 30, 2009)

Do we really need another one of these threads?

Really?


----------



## Azure (Jul 30, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> So if a pinecone falls from a tree and lands in your ass is that morally wrong or are  you still pure in Jesus's eyes?


Oh wow. 11th Commandment, Thou shalt not lie with the spores of a tree.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Where Darkness Lies said:


> Do we really need another one of these threads?
> 
> Really?



_*YES**.*_  This question must be answered.  the fate of many dogs and/or dogfuckers could rely on it.  Eventually, perhaps.


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

I'd smack it in the head and yell at it. That is, if it tried to hump my leg. Not touching the other one. But there are pics of hot doggirls on the interwebs. That's completely different, though. Was I making some sort of point? I really don't know. Why am I still writing? I should press submit reply now.


----------



## Robertraccoon (Jul 30, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> So if a pinecone falls from a tree and lands in your ass is that morally wrong or are  you still pure in Jesus's eyes?



I just feel over laughing when a saw that


----------



## Kangamutt (Jul 30, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> HOLY VERTICAL VAGINAS BATMAN, WE HAVE ANOTHER DOG FUCKING THREAD!



This.


----------



## Tristan (Jul 30, 2009)

*Shrugs softly* My opinion on the matter is that if they're humping you (and, as you say, they 'started' it), they want sexual release to some degree, and are obviously comfortable enough with you physically to at least be humping you in the first place.

In sort of a similar thought, 'my' cat's used my hind legs as a masturbatory tool before (and even used one of my paws as well). Aside from the fact that she came all over my desk, I didn't see anything wrong with it. She was horny, we're both very close to each other (on a personal level), so she used me as a masturbatory tool.

That's not to say that in the case of the dog (or whatever), there may not be any physical attraction; the dog very may well find you to be attractive. But in the end, the sex (which is what I assume you mean) would be used ultimately as a means for orgasm (which is similar to masturbation), not unlike that of humans (setting aside the whole 'babies' theory, or whatever).

Hopefully I've made myself clear, and haven't just ended up repeating myself over and over. ^^;


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 30, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> HOLY VERTICAL VAGINAS BATMAN, WE HAVE ANOTHER DOG FUCKING THREAD!


 Sig'd.


----------



## BubbleWolf (Jul 30, 2009)

Why do I get the impression this topic turns up quite often....derp.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Tristan said:


> In sort of a similar thought, 'my' cat's used my hind legs as a masturbatory tool before (and even used one of my paws as well). Aside from the fact that she came all over my desk, I didn't see anything wrong with it. She was horny, we're both very close to each other (on a personal level), so she used me as a masturbatory tool.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> You see, this is my problem.  I never get any responses to this except "You shouldn't because it's gross" or "it's not natural because you should only have sex with things in order to make babies" or something else like that...
> 
> I'm sure someone will have _something_ convincing...  Eventually...
> 
> Maybe?



What the fuck would convince you, then?  The fact that it's not natural, it's disgusting, and potentially harmful to both of you is not enough?   The fact that you're fucking A DOG is not convincing enough!?


----------



## Carenath (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Keep in mind by humping I mean the old "in-out in-out" -- I don't mean humping a leg.


Clockwork Orange Reference :3

And eh no.. pure horrorshow.


----------



## furrygamer84 (Jul 30, 2009)

listen... a dog is a animal, it doesn't have much brains and he is influenced by his basic instincts. food, sleep, sex. a dog will try to hump anything, it doesn't mean you should let him.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

ChapperIce said:


> What the fuck would convince you, then?  The fact that it's not natural, it's disgusting, and potentially harmful to both of you is not enough?   The fact that you're fucking A DOG is not convincing enough!?



Potentially harmful how?


----------



## Azure (Jul 30, 2009)

Tristan said:


> *Shrugs softly* My opinion on the matter is that if they're humping you (and, as you say, they 'started' it), they want sexual release to some degree, and are obviously comfortable enough with you physically to at least be humping you in the first place.
> 
> In sort of a similar thought, 'my' cat's used my hind legs as a masturbatory tool before (and even used one of my paws as well). Aside from the fact that she came all over my desk, I didn't see anything wrong with it. She was horny, we're both very close to each other (on a personal level), so she used me as a masturbatory tool.
> 
> ...


So you essentially fingered your cat. If you're alright with it, I'll just rub my dick all over your forehead till I bust a fat one.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 30, 2009)

I'd throw it off...


----------



## Get-dancing (Jul 30, 2009)

YES! God! Why are you asking us this?!


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> So you essentially fingered your cat. If you're alright with it, I'll just rub my dick all over your forehead till I bust a fat one.



That's so getting sig'd. Fuckin' LOL.


----------



## Tristan (Jul 30, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> So you essentially fingered your cat. If you're alright with it, I'll just rub my dick all over your forehead till I bust a fat one.


Actually, it was more frottage than anything else. All she did was rub her clit against my arm/paw; there was next to no interaction from myself. I was just using that as an example of something I thought of as similar to the OP's question.


----------



## Azure (Jul 30, 2009)

Tristan said:


> Actually, it was more frottage than anything else. All she did was rub her clit against my arm/paw; there was next to no interaction from myself. I was just using that as an example of something I thought of as similar to the OP's question.


So if I just do the ole rubbaroo on the ole forehead there, and you do nothing, its AWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIGGGGHHHHHTTTT?babyfuck


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> _*YES**.*_  This question must be answered.  the fate of many dogs and/or dogfuckers could rely on it.  Eventually, perhaps.



no, we don't. it's not okay, it never is fucking going to be okay. i'm sick of people saying "WELL WE DON'T KNOW" because you DO know. you KNOW it's wrong, and you know you are just defending it because you want to FUCK ANIMALS. and you are only doing that because no human will touch you. it's not interspecies love, it's rape because you can't get consensual sex.

it's mean, but we all know the answer.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Potentially harmful how?



if you don't know about doggie anatomy, you could harm yourselves in that way. I read this really gross article that was basically a "how to fuck your dog" thing and there's a lot of shit that can go wrong. 

Seriously, fucking humans is easier. We're MEANT to fuck humans.


----------



## Takun (Jul 30, 2009)

Fucking cat rapists.  They are the worst.


----------



## Tristan (Jul 30, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> So if I just do the ole rubbaroo on the ole forehead there, and you do nothing, its AWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIGGGGHHHHHTTTT?babyfuck


Technically, it would be a bit different if you were to do it, seeing as you're a human as well. If that's your thing, though, go right ahead. owo


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> ...is it still wrong?  I mean from like an ethical standpoint.
> 
> I'm still not clear on this and would like to form an unbiased and objective moral stance on the subject.  As such, please only post relevant arguments that can at least be substantiated.



So, if a man comes over and starts masturbating over you, is it still wrong?


----------



## Gnome (Jul 30, 2009)

no its not wrong...
but id still kick it


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> no, we don't. it's not okay, it never is fucking going to be okay. i'm sick of people saying "WELL WE DON'T KNOW" because you DO know. you KNOW it's wrong, and you know you are just defending it because you want to FUCK ANIMALS. and you are only doing that because no human will touch you. it's not interspecies love, it's rape because you can't get consensual sex.
> 
> it's mean, but we all know the answer.



It's not mean (and I don't care; that's your opinion) but I've already said I have no interest in RL animals.  Still, this is a completely void argument.  You are saying it's wrong because people know it's wrong.  I've yet to hear one convincing argument why that is, if the animal does, in fact, want it.

I'm not looking for opinions here or emotionally driven bullshit, as I stated in my OP.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> So, if a man comes over and starts masturbating over you, is it still wrong?



Not if he's cute.  The whole point here is we're assuming the dog wants it.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2009)

No, the dog doesn't want it, the dog wants to relieve sexual tension.

If you think a dog can want to have sex with humans, you're wrong.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> if the animal does, in fact, want it.



HE DOES NOT WANT IT :U i hate to sound demeaning to animals, but that's how they're programmed. they don't know how to want sex, they just do it. they get the spark that says "sex! now!" so they do it. it's not that they want it. the dog is not hot for you, nor does he "want it". he's just humping. it's not a display of any sort of affection or emotion.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> No, the dog doesn't want it, the dog wants to relieve sexual tension.
> 
> If you think a dog can want to have sex with humans, you're wrong.



Humans can want to have sex with dogs, so why couldn't the opposite be true?

Maybe the dog is just a slut.  The point is if it humps you it obviously wanted it, whether is was to relieve sexual tension or whatever.



HarleyParanoia said:


> HE DOES NOT WANT IT :U i hate to sound demeaning to animals, but that's how they're programmed. they don't know how to want sex, they just do it. they get the spark that says "sex! now!" so they do it. it's not that they want it. the dog is not hot for you, nor does he "want it". he's just humping. it's not a display of any sort of affection or emotion.



How could you possibly know this?


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Humans can want to have sex with dogs, so why couldn't the opposite be true?
> 
> Maybe the dog is just a slut.  The point is if it humps you it obviously wanted it, whether is was to relieve sexual tension or whatever.



because humans and dogs are two totally different species and levels of intelligence. ANIMALS DO NOT UNDERSTAND SEX. they are just programmed to do it.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Humans can want to have sex with dogs, so why couldn't the opposite be true?



Because humans have more developed brains? Apart from humans only dolphins can want to have sex just for pleasure, for other species it's only procreation. 



> Maybe the dog is just a slut.  The point is if it humps you it obviously wanted it, whether is was to relieve sexual tension or whatever.



Seriously, stop looking for justification of you raping your dog. If you think a dog wants to have sex with you, you're looking to indulge your screwed up sexual tastes, not caring about the dog's health.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2009)

Hmm, unless you've dabble a little urine of a female dog in heat on your butt, a dog isn't going to hump you because he's "feeling frisky." It's a dominance thing. So turning around and doing him would still be rape, unethical, and illegal. Not saying that it's alright if you DID sprinkle female dog urine on yourself, either.

Anyways, it's sort of like thinking you can cop a feel on a female officer because she's frisking you.



Mikael Grizzly said:


> Because humans have more developed brains? Apart from humans only dolphins can want to have sex just for pleasure, for other species it's only procreation.



Actually, most primates have sex for fun all the time, take Bonobos for instance.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 30, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> That's so getting sig'd. Fuckin' LOL.


 Damnit, I was gonnna do that!  Oh well, I got one new sig quote today, that's enough I guess.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

If a dog comes up to you and starts humping your leg/etc, that's the dog's initiative. If you feel like you should help out, that's up to you. In some eyes, it would be immoral and/or gross to do so; In others, it would be immoral and/or gross not to.

Opinions are never black and white. In fact, not much in life is. Am I saying you should go fuck your dog silly? No. I'm saying that instead of looking to a bunch of furries and trolls on the internets, you should think about how that concept makes _you_ feel.

My personal take on it is that using an animal for sexual exploitation is inherently wrong - An animal can't consent to that sort of thing, and people can and will often misinterpret animal body language to mean whatever they want it to mean. Then again, humping your leg is pretty clear. I guess, again, it really depends on the situation and what your feelings about that sort of thing are. I'm personally not a zoophile nor do I support that (though I try to understand it), so quite honestly, never having been in that situation, I couldn't tell you how I'd act. To be totally honest, though, the likelihood is high that I'd shoo the dog away. Thinking about it another way, though, if he's bound and determined, it might be better to be able to manage the resultant mess than have the dog go off somewhere else and rub one out on the furniture or something.

I will say this, however, and this is really indicative of society in general: Abuse is abuse. A lot of people make a big deal about sexual abuse, which is, yes, really a big deal. But physical abuse is still very common, and there's been less and less awareness of that as of late.

But ultimately, right and wrong don't exist as absolutes. Whatever you think is right is right; Whatever you think is wrong is wrong. Nobody can tell you right from wrong if you haven't already figured it out for yourself.


----------



## SailorYue (Jul 30, 2009)

im terrified of dogs, so id be out hte room before the dog got close to me.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

If you wanna fuck an animal that fucks simply or pleasure and not only to relieve tension, establish dominence, or to make babies, go fuck a chimp. Enjoy your aids.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

ChapperIce said:


> If you wanna fuck an animal that fucks simply or pleasure and not only to relieve tension, establish dominence, or to make babies, go fuck a chimp



Dolphins.

... Though they'd probably tear you apart doing it.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> But ultimately, right and wrong don't exist as absolutes. Whatever you think is right is right; Whatever you think is wrong is wrong. Nobody can tell you right from wrong if you haven't already figured it out for yourself.



no. very no. because, every day, i get the urge to grab someone and rip out their throat. to me, that's right. that doesn't make it right, though.

however, if it DOES, then boy do i have some work to do!


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Let's put it another way:

 If a child comes up to you, completely naked, and starts humping you, would you make them stop or would you fuck them?  

If you choose the latter, you are truly sick. 

Children are similar to animals in a way so I think the comparison works. Neither understand what they're doing, and it's wrong to fuck either of them. Not to mention: It's illegal in most places.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Because humans have more developed brains? Apart from humans only dolphins can want to have sex just for pleasure, for other species it's only procreation.



I've posted this link before, but here it is again:

It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".



			
				ChapperIce said:
			
		

> If you wanna fuck an animal that fucks simply or pleasure and not only to relieve tension, establish dominence, or to make babies, go fuck a chimp. Enjoy your aids.



(see above)


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I've posted this link before, but here it is again:
> 
> It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".
> 
> (see above)



Generally, resorting to quoting Wikipedia and linking to it, instead of formulating an argument, even the flimsiest, is a sure sign of some sort of intellectual deficency.

Anywhoo, I'll indulge you:



> Science *cannot say* at present *conclusively* what animals do or do not find "pleasurable",



Of course, to justify dog raping, the above means that since there is no clear evidence to the contrary, _obviously_, non-human animals _must _find sex with humans pleasurable, even though there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that they do.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I've posted this link before, but here it is again:
> 
> It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".
> 
> ...



I'll prove you wrong.

*edits wikipedia article*


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> no. very no. because, every day, i get the urge to grab someone and rip out their throat. to me, that's right. that doesn't make it right, though.
> 
> however, if it DOES, then boy do i have some work to do!



I stand by my previous statement: Right and wrong, as absolutes, don't exist. If that's right for you, then it's right.

_However_, legal and illegal _do_ exist, which keeps the misguided (mostly) in line. =D

I should add, however, that the moment you violate someone else's definition of right/wrong, you'll generally hear about it. And doing it in such a way that could/does cause harm to them or their property will probably result in several broken bones and/or a lawsuit or jail time.

Now, _I_ won't argue that killing someone or raping someone is wrong, because to me, it is. But that doesn't make it absolutely wrong (though it _is_ illegal in most civilized nations and it _is_ common sense). It's one of those philosophical things, really. You can't just say something is wrong.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2009)

I love FA, it's Christmas everytime a beastialist opens up, thinking it can find support.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

ChapperIce said:


> I'll prove you wrong.
> 
> *edits wikipedia article*



this. the whole dispelling of the myth was probably fictional bullshit written by another dogfucker.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Generally, resorting to quoting Wikipedia and linking to it, instead of formulating an argument, even the flimsiest, is a sure sign of some sort of intellectual deficency.



No, spewing facts that are completely wrong and useless because someone doesn't have the common sense to check a source to substantiate what they say is a sign that they are full of shit.



> Anywhoo, I'll indulge you:



I read the article, thank you, and this was my point -- we can't tell what an animal is thinking so stating "only dolphins and chimps have sex for pleasure" or something to that effect is completely unfounded, ignorant and just plain wrong.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> No, spewing facts that are completely wrong and useless because someone doesn't have the common sense to check a source to substantiate what they say is a sign that they are full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> I read the article, thank you, and this was my point -- we can't tell what an animal is thinking so stating "only dolphins and chimps have sex for pleasure" or something to that effect is completely unfounded, ignorant and just plain wrong.




Ok so ignore that all together. Say the dog DOES want it.  Does it make it right? No it does not.

Just like fucking a child who seems to want it doesn't make it right.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

This whole idea of "we don't know what they're thinking" really reminds me of the whole concept that "ANIMALS CAN'T BE GAY", and yet - There it is. In nature and in captivity, many examples exist. So, really, there's a lot more work to be done with regard to understanding animals in general before we can really answer a lot of these questions regarding them.

Which basically means that in most cases if science doesn't know, you should assume that _you don't know, either_.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2009)

Fucking troll.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> No, spewing facts that are completely wrong and useless because someone doesn't have the common sense to check a source to substantiate what they say is a sign that they are full of shit.



Quoting Wikipedia as an argument? Check. Resorting to petty insults when they can't create any kind of argument on their own? Check.

Why don't you give the keyboard away to your mother or next of kin before you hurt yourself?



> I read the article, thank you, and this was my point -- we can't tell what an animal is thinking so stating "only dolphins and chimps have sex for pleasure" or something to that effect is completely unfounded, ignorant and just plain wrong.



A shame you won't apply the same standards to your "dogs _must_ derive pleasure from having sex with me" sentiment.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> This whole idea of "we don't know what they're thinking" really reminds me of the whole concept that "ANIMALS CAN'T BE GAY", and yet - There it is. In nature and in captivity, many examples exist. So, really, there's a lot more work to be done with regard to understanding animals in general before we can really answer a lot of these questions regarding them.
> 
> Which basically means that in most cases if science doesn't know, you should assume that _you don't know, either_.



totally off topic. funny you never responded to the last point i made that was directed AT YOU.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Ok so ignore that all together. Say the dog DOES want it.  Does it make it right? No it does not.
> 
> Just like fucking a child who seems to want it doesn't make it right.



A child is not fully developed emotionally and so we say they can't "consent" until a certain age.  We are not talking about a puppy, we're talking about a fully-grown dog (I hope) and even though a dog does not have the same mental capability as a human there is still this time of development.

Saying the dog wants it though doesn't _prove_ it's right -- this is correct, but you can't prove something is wrong by saying you can't prove it is right (that's circular logic).


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> totally off topic. funny you never responded to the last point i made that was directed AT YOU.



What, you want to rip out my throat? Why?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 30, 2009)

I have little respect for dogfuckers or those who do not have a problem with it. Please, just keep it to your fucking selves, I do not want to know wether you like to, or agree with dogfucking in any way, shape or form.

A dog screwing a human is as imoral as a human screwing a dog. Either way it would be an act of beastiality.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> What, you want to rip out my throat? Why?



no. i'm responding to your "IF YOU'RE THINKING IT'S RIGHT, IT MUST BE RIGHT" thing. just because i want to rip out someone's throat doesn't make it right, does it?


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> no. i'm responding to your "IF YOU'RE THINKING IT'S RIGHT, IT MUST BE RIGHT" thing. just because i want to rip out someone's throat doesn't make it right, does it?



I did address this.



Me said:


> I stand by my previous statement: Right and wrong, as absolutes, don't exist. If that's right for you, then it's right.
> 
> However, legal and illegal do exist, which keeps the misguided (mostly) in line. =D
> 
> ...


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I've posted this link before, but here it is again:
> 
> It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".
> 
> ...



How the fuck do you make a link as writing? I'm used to doing that in PHPbb, but here the damn thing just asks you to paste the address for the link. I have no idea how to make it show up as a word or sentence instead of the address. WTF?


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> A child is not fully developed emotionally and so we say they can't "consent" until a certain age.  We are not talking about a puppy, we're talking about a fully-grown dog (I hope) and even though a dog does not have the same mental capability as a human there is still this time of development.
> 
> Saying the dog wants it though doesn't _prove_ it's right -- this is correct, but you can't prove something is wrong by saying you can't prove it is right (that's circular logic).



Children and animals are very similar in a lot of ways. 

If you wouldn't fuck a child, why the fuck would you fuck a dog? There are TONS of reasons not to fuck animals, and you've ignored them because you don't think they're good enough reasons, because you want to fuck your dog.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 30, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> How the fuck do you make a link as writing? I'm used to doing that in PHPbb, but here the damn thing just asks you to paste the address for the link. I have no idea how to make it show up as a word or sentence instead of the address. WTF?


 You type out the words that you want and then you highlight them before you hit the insert hyperlink buttons.  

For example, type wikipedia out and then highlight it and put wikipedia.org in the insert hyperlink address box. 

Wikipedia


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> How the fuck do you make a link as writing? I'm used to doing that in PHPbb, but here the damn thing just asks you to paste the address for the link. I have no idea how to make it show up as a word or sentence instead of the address. WTF?



Seriously? Um. Well, here, have an example; replace brackets with square brackets:

(url=http://yoursite.here/lulz.jpg)HAY GUYS THERE ARE LULZ HERE(/url)

Would put the link to the text "HAY GUYS THERE ARE LULZ HERE".

Like so: HAY GUYS THERE ARE LULZ HERE


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 30, 2009)

ChapperIce said:


> Children and animals are very similar in a lot of ways.
> 
> If you wouldn't fuck a child, why the fuck would you fuck a dog? There are TONS of reasons not to fuck animals, and you've ignored them because you don't think they're good enough reasons, because you want to fuck your dog.



Because dogfuckers, and those who agree with it are either blind to the wrongs of it or deliberately ignore the facts from the opposing arguement.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Because dogfuckers, and those who agree with it are either blind to the wrongs of it or deliberately ignore the facts from the opposing arguement.



Or, more accurately, dogs can't talk.


----------



## Duality Jack (Jul 30, 2009)

Personally I only like to mate with Real human women, and find the prospect of bestiality kinda disgusting. But thats just me.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Or, more accurately, dogs can't talk.



I think dogfuckers think that a dogs woof is yes to everything.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> How the fuck do you make a link as writing? I'm used to doing that in PHPbb, but here the damn thing just asks you to paste the address for the link. I have no idea how to make it show up as a word or sentence instead of the address. WTF?



You write it like this:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Sex_for_pleasure"]It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".[/URL]



ChapperIce said:


> If you wouldn't fuck a child, why the fuck would you fuck a dog?



I wouldn't want to fuck either of them.  Can't I just ask something for the sake of being curious?


----------



## Zseliq (Jul 30, 2009)

When a dog humps a human it is usualy a sign of dominace or high excitement. If a dog begins humping you take him by the collar and gently move him so that all four paws are on the floor once more. If he continues give the command "NO!" then distract him by throwing a toy or telling him to Sit or someother command that he/she knows.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2009)

GummyBear said:


> When a dog humps a human it is usualy a sign of dominace or high excitement. If a dog begins humping you take him by the collar and gently move him so that all four paws are on the floor once more. If he continues give the command "NO!" then distract him by throwing a toy or telling him to Sit or someother command that he/she knows.



THANK YOU. I honestly thought this would be a more commonly known fact.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

Nargle said:


> THANK YOU. I honestly thought this would be a more commonly known fact.



Actually, I believe it was mentioned a little earlier, too, but buried under/mixed with a few other things.

Right, _you_ said it. XD


----------



## Zseliq (Jul 30, 2009)

Nargle said:


> THANK YOU. I honestly thought this would be a more commonly known fact.


You are welcome. 

Offtopic: OMG Basil in you sig is SO cute!


----------



## whoadamn (Jul 30, 2009)

Cry more fucking please.

Jesus, is this ethical? Howbout this? Bla bla bla.

This topic is similar to the chicken and the egg, only over matters of morality. All of this bad-furries bullshit is overdone, trivial and largely ignorant.

I wish it wasn't just me who finds material like this useless, but for this particular community, it appears to be mere hatred toward others which causes any discernable bonding.

I certainly hope nobody is silly enough to feel oppressed for entitling themselves a furry as well as voicing just how much they hate this and that, because that's hypocrisy. Mind you, where's society without fucking hypocrisy.

Keep up the good work, you can be thankful you're ridding the world of the incredibly vague stereotype you've generated by simply bitching about it.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> You write it like this:
> 
> [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Sex_for_pleasure"]It is a common myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs (and perhaps cats, dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction".[/URL]
> 
> ...



Sure but don't defend it as though you yourself are a dogfucker.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Actually, I believe it was mentioned a little earlier, too, but buried under/mixed with a few other things.
> 
> *Right, you said it. XD*



YAH, and I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one, lol XD



GummyBear said:


> You are welcome.
> 
> Offtopic: OMG Basil in you sig is SO cute!



OMG I KNOW RIIIGGGHHHTT??? **Spaz attack**

I've owned him for about three months, and I literally still cannot look at him without saying "Awww" or laughing a little.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

whoadamn said:


> Cry more fucking please.



In other words, "I don't really have anything to say, so I'll just mock everyone who's bothering to discuss it because I'm so cool. I love the Power Glove. It's so bad."


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jul 30, 2009)

ChapperIce said:


> I'll prove you wrong.
> 
> *edits wikipedia article*



Best argument!


Seriously though, saying something is gross or wrong is not a valid argument. Saying the intelligence level and babies makes it wrong is invalid. Probably about 95% of sex is for pleasure. And to steal the saying "If a man is old enough to die for his country, he should be old enough to drink beer", if a dog can mate and reproduce, then saying it's a dumb animal is an invalid argument. At the same time, saying the animal must enjoy it because it is doing it is not right either. If you've ever had a seisure or tick you know that sometimes your body does things you don't expect or want it to. Just ask any guy if they've ever had a hard on at inconvenient times. Having a hard on implies the guy wants sex, but that's definately not always the case. And if a guy has a hard on it doesn't mean that it's open season for any woman to jump his bones. So the argument that if a dog humps your leg it wants to have sex with you or it's ok to have sex with it is invalid, no matter the intelligence or pleasure. But is sex with animals somehow morally wrong? I guess it would depend on your morals. It's unnatural. But I wouldn't say it is wrong as long as it's consensual. Some people consider being gay gross, unnatural, and morally wrong but it's not because it's consensual. You would have to ask, is the animal consenting? But you can only guess at that, so best case it's ok, worst case you are committing rape. So you'd have to say it's rape because you can't communicate with the animal and you have to assume the worst. And you can't say that my animal likes it and is ok with it based on the animal's attittude. Because domesticated pets can be treated like shit and still come back for more because they love their masters. Just as a woman can be beaten half to death by a man and still love him and want to stay with him. What it boils down to is it's wrong because you can't know if it's right.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Seriously though, saying something is gross or wrong is not a valid argument. Saying the intelligence level and babies makes it wrong is invalid. Probably about 95% of sex is for pleasure. And to steal the saying "If a man is old enough to die for his country, he should be old enough to drink beer", if a dog can mate and reproduce, then saying it's a dumb animal is an invalid argument. At the same time, saying the animal must enjoy it because it is doing it is not right either. If you've ever had a seisure or tick you know that sometimes your body does things you don't expect or want it to. Just ask any guy if they've ever had a hard on at inconvenient times. Having a hard on implies the guy wants sex, but that's definately not always the case. And if a guy has a hard on it doesn't mean that it's open season for any woman to jump his bones. So the argument that if a dog humps your leg it wants to have sex with you or it's ok to have sex with it is invalid, no matter the intelligence or pleasure. But is sex with animals somehow morally wrong? I guess it would depend on your morals. It's unnatural. But I wouldn't say it is wrong as long as it's consensual. Some people consider being gay gross, unnatural, and morally wrong but it's not because it's consensual. You would have to ask, is the animal consenting? But you can only guess at that, so best case it's ok, worst case you are committing rape. So you'd have to say it's rape because you can't communicate with the animal and you have to assume the worst. And you can't say that my animal likes it and is ok with it based on the animal's attittude. Because domesticated pets can be treated like shit and still come back for more because they love their masters. Just as a woman can be beaten half to death by a man and still love him and want to stay with him. What it boils down to is it's wrong because you can't know if it's right.



Best post in this thread.  I can't find an argument here because...  Well, because you're right


----------



## Corto (Jul 30, 2009)

Hey if this can be kept as a serious discussion then by all means go ahead. If this turns into a "I WANT TO FUCK MY DOG" versus "YOU'RE SICK" comments (always with the well-timed "YOU'RE ALL RETARDS AND I'M AWESOME FOR POINTING THIS OUT"  post of course) then I'll just lock it and infract everyone.

It's evidence of maturity that people can discuss topics such as these with intelligent arguments without name-calling and such, and for some reason I still hope there is some maturity in these forums. 


For the record, I think dogfucking is crazy and I'm awesome.


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Corto said:


> For the record, I think dogfucking is crazy and I'm awesome.



Agreed


How about this? The law in many places is that it's illegal to have sex with the animal. How about, if you want to fuck your dog, but it's illegal there, you obey the damn law? They're there for a reason. 

I think what a better question for this thread is:

Say you're laying there naked for whatever reason, and your dog, cat, what have you comes up and licks your privates. Would you stop them? 
 I would because it's my pet. My cat is like my child to me (sorta) it'd be disgusting if I allowed it to continue.

Perhaps this is why a lot of people see it as wrong? They see their pets as their family, as their "children" and no one wants to see their kids have sex, especially not with one of their parents.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2009)

> How about this? The law in many places is that it's illegal to have sex with the animal. How about, if you want to fuck your dog, but it's illegal there, you obey the damn law? They're there for a reason.


To play devil's advocate, it's also illegal in many places to have anal sex. Thoughts?


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> To play devil's advocate, it's also illegal in many places to have anal sex. Thoughts?



I do not want anal sex C: so that's fine.


----------



## Nargle (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> To play devil's advocate, it's also illegal in many places to have anal sex. Thoughts?



1, Where
2, Why


----------



## Aurali (Jul 30, 2009)

Runefox said:


> To play devil's advocate, it's also illegal in many places to have anal sex. Thoughts?



Virginia it's illegal. all Sodomy is illegal (everything BUT Penis in vagina)


----------



## ChapperIce (Jul 30, 2009)

Eli said:


> Virginia it's illegal. all Sodomy is illegal (everything BUT Penis in vagina)


Well with a name like Virginia, it's no surprise?


----------



## Asswings (Jul 30, 2009)

Okay, if you're naked, and bent over on the ground to a point that the dog can hump you, you're obviously WANTING to submit to him. You don't think dogs can sense that? It's like if your boss at work suddenly said "Okay, I'm trading jobs with you, you can be the boss now."

The first thing you'd do is order him to do something, to make sure you really ARE the boss, right?

Same thing with dogs. They're going to make positive they're now the dominate one. It's not about sex, it's about bossing you around. And yes, it is very wrong, because you really AREN'T going to be letting the dog be the boss. Like if your ex-boss at work lets you order him around once or twice, then yells at you and punishes you next time you tried it. Wouldn't you be confused and upset? Same with dogs. But worse, because they only understand body language. 

It's like giving a baby candy, then yanking it away, and swatting said baby over the head for wanting their candy back. Do it enough and your kid's gonna hate your guts. Then they'll become a furry and conspire to kill you, and have someone bite off their dick.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2009)

Eli said:


> Virginia it's illegal.



*thumbs up*


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2009)

goddamnmotherfuckersonofabitch HOW IS THIS NOT LOCKED?


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2009)

Tycho said:


> goddamnmotherfuckersonofabitch HOW IS THIS NOT LOCKED?



we have whiny-asses who want to make more points about why having sex with animals is AWWRIGHT.


----------



## Asswings (Jul 31, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> we have whiny-asses who want to make more points about why having sex with animals is AWWRIGHT.



Corto posted somewhere in this mess.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 31, 2009)

Ricky said:


> ...is it still wrong?  I mean from like an ethical standpoint.
> 
> I'm still not clear on this and would like to form an unbiased and objective moral stance on the subject.  As such, please only post relevant arguments that can at least be substantiated.



I'd say it'd be a very embarrassing situation.  Very unexpected.


----------



## Asswings (Jul 31, 2009)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> I'd say it'd be a very embarrassing situation.  Very unexpected.



Did you read the rest? He means so that the dog actually has intercourse with you.


Pretty sure that wouldn't be unexpected.


----------



## I am a communist (Jul 31, 2009)

Why are we even debating about if dog lovinz are moral or not? There is a reason the (average, at least...) human is not attracted to dogs, cats, and other non-human animals.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 31, 2009)

Ticon said:


> Did you read the rest? He means so that the dog actually has intercourse with you.
> 
> 
> Pretty sure that wouldn't be unexpected.



Hmm.  True.  If you're bent over naked, you're kinda asking for it.  >_>;


----------



## Ricky (Jul 31, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> we have whiny-asses who want to make more points about why having sex with animals is AWWRIGHT.



I hear a lot more people on this forum whining in the opposite direction, to tell the truth.

Rostam the Grey pretty much gave me what I was looking for though.  It's sometimes hard to sort through all the bullshit in such an emotionally driven debate.

What I realized from reading his post (which pretty much summed up what we already know) is you _can't_ know what is right or wrong for an animal when it comes to stuff like this.  Since they are an animal and can't communicate with us it's only right to assume doing something like this _could_ potentially hurt them and so yes, it is wrong because there's no possible way to know otherwise.

It was funny hearing all the bitching though; I think I even got called a dogfucker several times in this thread.  I love you guys <3


----------



## Bambi (Jul 31, 2009)

ChapperIce said:


> What the fuck would convince you, then? The fact that it's not natural, it's disgusting, and potentially harmful to both of you is not enough? The fact that you're fucking A DOG is not convincing enough!?


Fact of Life:

Nature doesn't care. 

(Just stirring the pot, know doubt.)


----------



## Leostale (Jul 31, 2009)

I see...
hmm...
(just bieng honest i has that same phase idk why though)

I was Young ignorant and craving to have sex but not that desperate.
before i was a furry, 
I did have thoughts of that.. and actually i kinda liked the idea
 but i researched and found out that 

Human x dog = STDs (and those who are thinking. No i didnt experimented & have sex with a dog, i just researched it on internet)

that is why bestiality is bad

and i met the fandom and grew respect for it and all my liking for bestiality is gone (which is a good thing but still i'd like to see yiffs) and clearly i wont "do" an animal

 I'm still a virgin, and wont have sex until married


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 31, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I hear a lot more people on this forum whining in the opposite direction, to tell the truth.
> 
> Rostam the Grey pretty much gave me what I was looking for though.  It's sometimes hard to sort through all the bullshit in such an emotionally driven debate.
> 
> ...



It is wrong both sides of the debate to assume either way. It is wrong for us who are against it to "assume" it is bad for the dog and the dog doesn't want it, but at the same time, those who are all for it are also wrong to assume it is fine and the dog does want it.

I did use the term "dogfucker" but i wasn't calling you one.


----------



## Superfoxy (Jul 31, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It is wrong both sides of the debate to assume either way. It is wrong for us who are against it to "assume" it is bad for the dog and the dog doesn't want it, but at the same time, those who are all for it are also wrong to assume it is fine and the dog does want it.
> 
> I did use the term "dogfucker" but i wasn't calling you one.



So are you saying, then, that you're an Agnostic when it comes to the defensibility of dogfucking?


----------



## moonchylde (Jul 31, 2009)

Tycho said:


> goddamnmotherfuckersonofabitch HOW IS THIS NOT LOCKED?



Locking threads like this is like throwing water on a mowgli... you just end up with a bunch of nearly identical threads that get more and more retarded as time goes by, because butthurt OP'rs keep trying to change it a little more so we won't notice.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 31, 2009)

The Superfoxy Genius said:


> So are you saying, then, that you're an Agnostic when it comes to the defensibility of dogfucking?



No, if you saw the other threads on this subject i posted in, you would know i am strongly against dogfucking or any form of beastiality. Not because i think it is harming the animal but because i think it is an act that just shouldn't be carried out, i feel the act is imoral on many levels.


----------



## Asswings (Jul 31, 2009)

ITT: Ricky ignores facts, pretends he's not a dogfucker.


----------



## pheonix (Jul 31, 2009)

If a dog starts humping me I'm gonna push it off, if it comes too try again it's getting kicked.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2009)

this thread has taught me a valuable lesson:

Always have your pets spayed or neutered. if you don't, people will have sex with them.


----------



## Asswings (Jul 31, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> this thread has taught me a valuable lesson:
> 
> Always have your pets spayed or neutered. if you don't, people will have sex with them.



-starts humpin' u-


----------



## Telnac (Aug 1, 2009)

Punt to the crotch.  [/humping]


----------



## Corto (Aug 1, 2009)

Who the hell was I kidding? This thread is a wreck and no one here should be allowed near sensitive issues again.
To be honest the only reason I left this open is because I wanted to see if people here could actually keep a thread serious and avoid derailing it, and also because I wanted to separate you people into "dogfuckers" and "not dogfuckers" for my own stupid agenda. 

Fuck this shit. Now I'm left with the job of reading through this again to see who deserves infractions.

Thread locked, and screw you all. May God have mercy on your souls.


----------

