Topic: Your thoughts on bestiality?

Anonymous A started this topic 9 months (2009-07-04 08:18:?? UTC) ago (#28,880):

I've always wanted to have this discussion somewhere, but can't have it in real life for fear of being judged.

Basically, I'd like to know exactly what it says in the title - what are your thoughts on bestiality? Is it wrong or not and why do you feel that way?

I've always felt kind of torn on the issue. I know that some people abuse animals in order to use them sexually and I feel it's definitely wrong in those situations. But why is it a issue even when no animals are being harmed? In example, I personally have always found the idea (although I wouldn't do it myself) of a girl getting mounted by a dog or other canine incredibly hot. As long as the dog is being well treated and the girl has consented, what's the problem? I've even seen videos where the dog seems to be enjoying it just as much as the girl.

Every perspective, for and against are welcome. I'm honestly torn on this issue, I find it very hot but I know a lot of people see it as disgusting.

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:25:?? UTC) ago, 7 minutes later (#172,830):

Personally, I find it revolting. But then again, according to the same people who find sex with trees and children and such to be okay, I am a bigot or phobic of [insert ridiculous lifestyle they're trying to convince you to accept - here]. Homosexuality is widely accepted in Scandinavia. Right now they have bestiality epidemics and people begging for acceptance of this lifestyle. It's the next logical step in sexual deviance for mental cripples. You should move over there if you want to be more accepted. People in America still aren't brainwashed by all that hippie stuff, though the current youth generation is getting there in a hurry, so if you stay here it could take a lifetime before people find it acceptable.

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:27:?? UTC) ago, 2 minutes later, 9 minutes past creation (#172,834):

You should see my dog - It's amusing. He humps his pillow/blanket bed. Really vigorously humping it.

Usually he does that after I had sex with my wife. I wonder about the day she crawls down on the floor looking for her contacts, naked. Would the horny pup go for it?

It's not a far leap - Animals are known to take care of other species - affection can be cross-specied.

Consent, however, is impossible since all animals are not exactly adept at language. There's no real way to communicate consent.

Bestiality … it exists and sometimes, the law doesn't care - especially if you can't prove that it happened. As long as we're allowed to kill them for meat, sport or shock them into submission - rape really isn't that unusual in the context.

So, Really, I don't like it and I prefer to not know who practices it but I wouldn't really do anything If I do find out… Not much I CAN do.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:28:?? UTC) ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes past creation (#172,835):

I am into sadism , necrophilia and bestiality.

But I think I may be flogging a dead horse.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:32:?? UTC) ago, 4 minutes later, 14 minutes past creation (#172,839):

@172,834

> Consent, however, is impossible since all animals are not exactly adept at language. There's no real way to communicate consent.

To be honest, I've wondered about that. Wouldn't a dog humping a human's leg be giving consent, in a sense? It's making it obvious that it has sexual interest in its target, after all.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:34:?? UTC) ago, 2 minutes later, 16 minutes past creation (#172,840):

I think you should do what ever feels good as long as it doesn't hurt the animal in any way. My dog's licked my pussy on several occasions and afterwards I felt like a sick fuck. Not because it was done with a dog, but more because she wasn't a guy. I just realized something… my dog's female, does that make me a lesbian?

Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:37:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 19 minutes past creation (#172,841):

@172,839

No it isn't it is just exercising a biological imperative.

Animals do not understand the notion of consent, that is a human concept, which (incidentally) some on AT could do with getting a slightly better grasp of.

Anyway why are you going down this path man? Curiosity? Or just fancy the little poodle next door?

Anonymous C replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:41:?? UTC) ago, 4 minutes later, 23 minutes past creation (#172,844):

Intellectual curiosity and discourse is not intent to commit.

Otherwise, you will end up condemning Stephen King as a murderer or Tom Clancy as a terrorist.

Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:44:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes past creation (#172,848):

@previous

I think I will just condemn them both as shit writers and leave it at that.

Anonymous C replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:47:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 29 minutes past creation (#172,849):

Okay - College students that reads Karl Marx as anarchists, or People that collect banned books such as criminals.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:50:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 32 minutes past creation (#172,850):

@172,841

> No it isn't it is just exercising a biological imperative.
>
> Animals do not understand the notion of consent, that is a human concept, which (incidentally) some on AT could do with getting a slightly better grasp of.
>
> Anyway why are you going down this path man? Curiosity? Or just fancy the little poodle next door?

I see.

Mostly curiosity. If I had the opportunity to do it (which is unlikely), I don't think I would, for a few different reasons. And even if it weren't for those reasons I doubt it would be as satisfying in real life as it is in fantasy. I've heard dogs are quick fucks. :P (Female, by the way.)

Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:51:?? UTC) ago, 36 seconds later, 33 minutes past creation (#172,852):

@172,849

Jesus man, I was just trying to inject a little humour through some gentle teasing. I am not going to argue with you because then we will go off topic extremely fast and I do actually find OP quite interesting.

I was just curious as to what had piqued OP curiosity, that is all.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:51:?? UTC) ago, 46 seconds later, 34 minutes past creation (#172,853):

@172,835

Meant to say this in my last post, but thanks for this, I needed a good laugh.

Anonymous C replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:55:?? UTC) ago, 4 minutes later, 37 minutes past creation (#172,855):

@172,852

"I was just curious as to what had piqued OP curiosity, that is all."

I realized that and I felt like crap right after. I think I'm real tired. I apologize for being an asshole. :)

Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:57:?? UTC) ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes past creation (#172,856):

@172,850

It is the case that dog's fuck rapidly. It is also extremely painful to the bitch owing to knotting and neck biting. The knot takes a long time to go down on the dog post orgasm which can lead to the phenomenon of two animals being locked together.

As for bestiality, I know one woman who partakes and she says she does it when she wants a brutal rough fuck. her husband is a kind, gentle guy and I'm sure he wouldn't be happy to know his Mrs is shagging Ben the Golden retriever, but she says it's just brutal sex and it's better than going out and pulling a man as Ben always does the job. The hard bit is stopping him from doing it when husband is there!

Anonymous D double-posted this 9 months (2009-07-04 08:58:?? UTC) ago, 49 seconds later, 40 minutes past creation (#172,857):

@172,855

No stress man. I just spent a week shitlisted for the same reason.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 09:19:?? UTC) ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour past creation (#172,872):

The person who says that consent is a human concept is absolutely right, but they interpret it the wrong way. Because consent is a human concept is why it's irrelevant to beastiality and why beastiality shouldn't be banned because of the flawed notion that animals can't give consent.

Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 09:28:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour past creation (#172,879):

@previous

I found it quite difficult picking my way through this in order to draw a counter argument but if what you are actually saying is that owing to the fact that dogs are dogs, and not therefore human , the concept of consent becomes irrelevant then you appear to be creating the bizarre concept of animal rape.

As I said in another thread, this is a moral argument. Just because we can take advantage of the uncomprehending does not mean that we should.

Anonymous F replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 09:45:?? UTC) ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour past creation (#172,883):

@previous

No, you're confused. You can't "rape" an animal in the way you're thinking of it as consent doesn't exist to them. They're not "uncomprehending" of the complex human idea of consent; it merely is irrelevant to them. All of the complex social and emotional factors do not apply to them and thus shouldn't be considered. For an animal it's not about consenting or not; it's about whether they're currently horny or not. The fallacy anti-beastiality advocates promote is simultaneously denying that can animals can comprehend complex human social concepts while at the same time holding the animals to them. The dog doesn't know what consent means; you're right. This doesn't mean that the dog doesn't want sex though. The difference between humans and animals (most animals, certain ones such as dolphins and certain primates are exceptions) is that humans have, in equality quantity, sociological and biological aspects to their sexuality. An animal's sexuality is far more biological. Anti-zoophiles often argue that humans should not mix sexually with animals because that sociological part of their sexuality doesn't exist, but I don't see why. All human sociological implications are irrelevant to sex involving animals. You cannot speak of animals in terms of "consent" or "rape".

Anonymous D replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 10:11:?? UTC) ago, 26 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#172,902):

@previous

I am actually agreeing with (up to a point) hence my use of the word bizarre.

My opinion is
a) Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should.
b) As long as no harm to animal or human comes about I don't see the harm in it.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-04 23:32:?? UTC) ago, 13 hours later, 15 hours past creation (#173,258):

Complete beastlover here. Never done it myself (I don't think I'd dare to), but it's the only type of porn I can get my rocks off to, as well as making up most of my fantasies. I see it very much as in the case of women getting fucked by animals, there's not much to complain about; if the animal didn't want to do it, he wouldn't do it. At least it's the case in amateur stuff, you can never be sure in 'pro' beast porn. A lot of the time it seems like the poor creature is forced back into the shot, held by it's legs, and is subjected to a stressful environment in a studio with hot lights. As for men with animals… I've always been a little more dubious morally about it. Perhaps because it's much easier for a man to subject an animal to sex it doesn't want, but I've seen videos where after the bloke has pulled out, the dog physically adjusts itself and moves for penetration again. In cow and horse sex, they never seem too fussed, and orgasm. Animals don't have the same amount of self-hatred we do about sexual encounters, and it seems that, particularly in amateur films, they're willing participants. If you read forums for zoophiles (like beastforum), a lot of people who indulge in it express a romantic attachment to the animal concerned, and genuinely care for it. Ultimately, animals are more than able to 'consent' to the sex by expressing their want, or lack thereof, and if someone gets off on being fucked by a dog cock, good for them. I like masturbating to it.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-05 04:56:?? UTC) ago, 5 hours later, 21 hours past creation (#173,396):

I think bestiality is fine, to a point.

As discussed above, "consent" is a vague term to use with animals - even though I'm absolutely the kinda person that like to say animals are damn intelligent, despite their intelligence they're simply not human.
In fact, I'll probably say that it's okay as long as it's the animal in question is doing 'you', not the opposite, because the opposite you will never really be sure about how it's appreciated by them. And as long as you do not know that - I don't think it's very nice to do it to them.

I lived with my parents years ago and we had a wonderful border collie (female), who caught me coming out of the shower once, home alone, and it ended up licking my pussy to absolute insanity (My, pleasurable, insanity, that is). So I'd be a hypocrite to say it's a stupid thing to do, or that I didn't enjoy it. I was too embarrassed to ever do it again or even really speak of it to anyone what so ever, so… Can't say it's my thing I guess.

But that's going off topic - I meant to say, I think it's okay if the animal is in charge, and not being forced into something - bearing in mind that you'll never know for sure whether the animal is feeling forced into it or not. They might not even have a feeling about whether they're forced or not for all we know - they might just go with it and not really care. But I'd like to doubt that, just throwing the idea out on the table.

As for finding it disgusting - that's not really something I can understand. As long as people do each-other up the ass, suck each-other, pee on each-other, poop on each-other… I don't see how a dog licking between your legs would be any sort of disgusting. Sex is sex, sex is pleasure, if pleasure is disgusting, you need to open up your mind a little in my respectful opinion.

But this is all coming from someone who is nigh impossible to disgust, offend or other wise… Weird out. *Shrugs*

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-05 13:18:?? UTC) ago, 8 hours later, 1 day past creation (#173,621):

AnonTalk BBS

Topic: Your thoughts on bestiality?