So I was just clicking "random" seeing if I could come across a pretty cool subreddit and I came across this....(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2014-09-24 13:04:44 by [deleted]
doghumper 3 points on 2014-09-24 14:29:43
Good job, you are basically wrong about everything. Dogs are NOT like kids at all and if you treat them like little furry children you are going to end up with a dangerous problem dog.
And trust me, the dogs really enjoy and seek out sex once they realize you won't punish them for it. Even the female dogs.
While you could argue that those species are the only that naturally have recreational sex outside of mating seasons, all animals get a strong pleasure reward from having sex while they are in heat. Unfortunately, evolution has screwed most of them over and they tend to be too dry, tight and abrasive for pleasurable sex outside of the fertile season. As snopes puts it, the fighting between males and females for breeding rights makes constant sex a rather deadly affair, so animals have evolved breeding cycles that maximise the chances of successful pregnanices and survival of their offspring.
Fortunately, humans have invented all sorts of lubrication that lets the animals enjoy sex even when they're not fertile. Our animal mates don't have to fight each other for sex either, it's perfectly safe in a stress free environment where the human is the leader. It doesn't take long for them to catch on to it, my dog constantly flirts and tries to herd me into the bedroom now.
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-09-26 17:03:58
Don't male dogs usually spray a lot of precum as lubricant all over the place?
doghumper 2 points on 2014-09-27 06:12:16
It's true that the male provides lots of precum, but only after he achieves penetration and starts humping... It's probably more complicated than i'm describing it, instincts and reactions to pheromones play a big role. Prior experience is important too, male dogs that have bred a bitch before will be way more eager to do it again than a virgin dog. Female dogs in a zoophile household getting lots of enjoyable sex from their master are way more likely to also let a male dog mount and hump them outside of the fertile season.
TheBrockGage 1 point on 2014-09-24 14:37:34
You are what is wrong with the world... honestly see a shrink OP
[deleted] -1 points on 2014-09-26 13:32:47
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-30 21:36:06
[deleted]
danpetman 4 points on 2014-09-24 15:13:24
Jeez, where to start...
The classic argument that "animals are like children" misses the fundamental point that the reason sex with children is wrong is not "because they're children" but "because it causes harm." You can't say "in some ways, animals are like children, and sex with children is wrong, therefore sex with animals is wrong" because it fails to address the actual REASON that those activities is wrong. It's a false equivalence.
Secondly, you state that dogs hump your leg only to show dominance and not because they want to fuck you. While it's true that some mounting/humping behaviour in dogs is to display dominance, that is not the case for ALL humping, and no expert in canine behaviour would ever suggest that it was. In the case of humping to show dominance, the penis doesn't extend from the sheath and penetration is not attempted, because for the dog, it's not a sexual act. If the penis IS out and the dog DOES try to penetrate, then the act clearly is sexual on the dog's part. If he not only penetrates but continues to hump and even knot, you have to be delusional to think that it's "just to show dominance." You don't see male dogs fucking other male dogs in the ass to show dominance, just mounting. The two behaviours are different, and have different motivations.
As for licking, how can you possibly know that a dog does or doesn't want to lick someone's mouth? Are you suggesting that dogs are mentally able to consent to licking someone's hand, but when it's their mouth or genitals they somehow lose this ability and therefore allowing them to do it is harmful? Either allowing a dog to lick you on ANY body part is wrong, or it's all fine. You don't get to arbitrarily designate the "good" and "bad" parts when there is no difference in the way the dog experiences the act. As you say, it's licking you because it's a dog, and dogs like to lick things, regardless of where it's licking you. If the dog did not want to lick you (and some don't), it wouldn't.
Your statement "No matter what you think a dog does not want to fuck you, have a romantic relationship with you. Why? Because it's a dog." seems to be completely devoid of any actual argument. It's circular reasoning since your statement "because it's a dog" seems to be saying "dogs don't want to have sex with you. I know this because dogs don't want to have sex with you." You haven't actually provided any reason or evidence for the statement. As a counterargument, I would suggest that the fact that dogs can and do have full sex with people, multiple times, without being forced or coerced, is fairly strong evidence that dogs DO want to have sex with people. If they didn't, why would they do it?
Finally, your "Do I want to fuck them? No. Do I want to go to Olive Garden with them? No." statements are a little confusing to me, if you meant them as an argument. Your personal preferences are just that; yours. You're more than welcome to have them, but they hold no weight as a logical or ethical argument. I might say "Do I put peanut butter and jam in a sandwich? No. Do I cut the crusts off? No." but that has exactly zero value as a condemnation of people who like peanut butter and jam sandwiches with the crusts cut off. It's just a statement of my preferences. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that people who do are wrong. Without actual evidence or a logically sound argument as to why sex with dogs is wrong, the best you can really do is agree to disagree.
Sorry for the long post, but I find it pays to be thorough in these matters. If you want to debate against zoophilia (which, just for the record, can also be entirely non-sexual) by all means do, I enjoy hearing people's arguments. But please, don't just present a bunch of logical fallacies and expect them to hold water.
ShadowOfMars 0 points on 2014-09-24 18:48:52
/u/danpetman has publicly confessed to the most heinous crime against God and against Man! In consequence of the sickening perversity and immorality of the act, he must be made a public example of, to send a message to all other jam-cutters that they have no place in society!
danpetman 1 point on 2014-09-24 18:56:44
Oh noes! I dun got founded out! It's true, I am secretly a fan of logically consistent arguments. How can I ever hide my shame? Also, what on earth is a jam-cutter?
EDIT: Yup, it took me almost 4 hours to get the joke. About the sandwich, and the jam, and oh god I can't stop facepalming. Evidently while I can manage a logical debate, understanding the blindingly obvious is a skill that eludes me >.<
[deleted] 0 points on 2014-09-26 13:25:33
[deleted]
danpetman 2 points on 2014-09-26 13:36:54
To be more accurate, I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out why your arguments are invalid. They'd be invalid regardless of my position on the subject. Poor logic is poor logic whether you agree with the argument it's trying to make or not.
I'm sorry that you consider hearing someone else's viewpoint a waste of your time, it must make it very difficult for you to have conversations with people when anything they say that you don't agree with you just blank out and ignore. I suppose it makes it easy to retain your beliefs in the face of evidence though; who'd want to waste their life thinking about stuff when you can be wrong but definite?
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-24 16:13:08
Keep in mind that not everyone feels the same way you do in regards to zoophilia, and that is irrespective of whether they are zoos or not. Please respect others and treat them as you wish to be treated. If you wish to complain about a user or the way the subreddit is run, feel free to message the mods.
We don't give two shits about your dogs(who must have such blue balls, poor things) or your crappy, near Bible thumping, opinions.
You do realize that Wikipedia articles (especially ones on controversial subjects like this one) get edited and curated by lots of different people, most of whom have no vested interest in the subject? And that everything needs to have appropriate citations? That's sort of the whole point of Wikipedia; to present as dispassionate and balanced a view as possibly by allowing all parties to contribute to the discussion. You wouldn't dismiss the Wikipedia page on Al Qaeda as being "created and edited by terrorists" would you?
zoozooz 2 points on 2014-09-26 16:23:39
But you can follow the sources and read the original academic material by Masters, Beetz, Miletski, Dekkers, etc.
danpetman 2 points on 2014-09-26 16:35:39
I think it's fair to say that actually learning something is not what /u/fuckcirclejerkmods had in mind when he strode in here to condemn us all and helpfully advise us to "get some help." Why let facts get in the way of your prejudices when you can just dismiss people are mentally ill and/or not worth your time and continue on in blissful ignorance?
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-09-26 16:51:37
Maybe not. But it still doesn't hurt recommending it.
askjd8237 2 points on 2014-09-26 12:46:58
Zoophiles are the last people to hurt animals you tool. That would be as if I'd assume that every husband necessarily beats and rapes their wife. Many zoos spend so much on the care, feed etc needs of their animals, your girlfriend would be jealous why you don't maintain her so well.
Also, good comparison. Please tell me hamburgers made from 4 year olds similarly disturb you. Because there is a 90% chance you like to eat 4 year olds. Many Americans traditionally roast 4 year olds on the 4th of July, and nobody seems to care. But feeling the wrong way when petting a dog on the head, Oh Jesus...
Bye, have fun hating...
[deleted] 0 points on 2014-09-26 13:31:14
[deleted]
askjd8237 1 point on 2014-09-26 16:07:55
Amazing, you troll manage to gather all the how-not-to argue examples in one thread.
zoozooz 1 point on 2014-09-26 17:09:47
Do you know of an actual statistic of how many people who have sex with an animal are hurting them v.s. how many there are who are making sure they are not hurting them?
Or are these just your assumptions?
askjd8237 1 point on 2014-09-26 12:51:34
Btw why don't you want to go to Olive Garden with your dogs? Do they have a no-dog policy? I think that would be a good day out.
Also, the dog that fucked me actively seems to disagree with you on a lot of things.
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-26 13:32:06
[deleted]
[deleted] 1 point on 2014-09-27 00:25:16
Now that you mention it... I've never been to Olive Garden
/r/zoophilia archive
Good job, you are basically wrong about everything. Dogs are NOT like kids at all and if you treat them like little furry children you are going to end up with a dangerous problem dog.
And trust me, the dogs really enjoy and seek out sex once they realize you won't punish them for it. Even the female dogs.
[deleted]
No that's wrong again. http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp
While you could argue that those species are the only that naturally have recreational sex outside of mating seasons, all animals get a strong pleasure reward from having sex while they are in heat. Unfortunately, evolution has screwed most of them over and they tend to be too dry, tight and abrasive for pleasurable sex outside of the fertile season. As snopes puts it, the fighting between males and females for breeding rights makes constant sex a rather deadly affair, so animals have evolved breeding cycles that maximise the chances of successful pregnanices and survival of their offspring.
Fortunately, humans have invented all sorts of lubrication that lets the animals enjoy sex even when they're not fertile. Our animal mates don't have to fight each other for sex either, it's perfectly safe in a stress free environment where the human is the leader. It doesn't take long for them to catch on to it, my dog constantly flirts and tries to herd me into the bedroom now.
Don't male dogs usually spray a lot of precum as lubricant all over the place?
It's true that the male provides lots of precum, but only after he achieves penetration and starts humping... It's probably more complicated than i'm describing it, instincts and reactions to pheromones play a big role. Prior experience is important too, male dogs that have bred a bitch before will be way more eager to do it again than a virgin dog. Female dogs in a zoophile household getting lots of enjoyable sex from their master are way more likely to also let a male dog mount and hump them outside of the fertile season.
You are what is wrong with the world... honestly see a shrink OP
[deleted]
[deleted]
Jeez, where to start...
The classic argument that "animals are like children" misses the fundamental point that the reason sex with children is wrong is not "because they're children" but "because it causes harm." You can't say "in some ways, animals are like children, and sex with children is wrong, therefore sex with animals is wrong" because it fails to address the actual REASON that those activities is wrong. It's a false equivalence.
Secondly, you state that dogs hump your leg only to show dominance and not because they want to fuck you. While it's true that some mounting/humping behaviour in dogs is to display dominance, that is not the case for ALL humping, and no expert in canine behaviour would ever suggest that it was. In the case of humping to show dominance, the penis doesn't extend from the sheath and penetration is not attempted, because for the dog, it's not a sexual act. If the penis IS out and the dog DOES try to penetrate, then the act clearly is sexual on the dog's part. If he not only penetrates but continues to hump and even knot, you have to be delusional to think that it's "just to show dominance." You don't see male dogs fucking other male dogs in the ass to show dominance, just mounting. The two behaviours are different, and have different motivations.
As for licking, how can you possibly know that a dog does or doesn't want to lick someone's mouth? Are you suggesting that dogs are mentally able to consent to licking someone's hand, but when it's their mouth or genitals they somehow lose this ability and therefore allowing them to do it is harmful? Either allowing a dog to lick you on ANY body part is wrong, or it's all fine. You don't get to arbitrarily designate the "good" and "bad" parts when there is no difference in the way the dog experiences the act. As you say, it's licking you because it's a dog, and dogs like to lick things, regardless of where it's licking you. If the dog did not want to lick you (and some don't), it wouldn't.
Your statement "No matter what you think a dog does not want to fuck you, have a romantic relationship with you. Why? Because it's a dog." seems to be completely devoid of any actual argument. It's circular reasoning since your statement "because it's a dog" seems to be saying "dogs don't want to have sex with you. I know this because dogs don't want to have sex with you." You haven't actually provided any reason or evidence for the statement. As a counterargument, I would suggest that the fact that dogs can and do have full sex with people, multiple times, without being forced or coerced, is fairly strong evidence that dogs DO want to have sex with people. If they didn't, why would they do it?
Finally, your "Do I want to fuck them? No. Do I want to go to Olive Garden with them? No." statements are a little confusing to me, if you meant them as an argument. Your personal preferences are just that; yours. You're more than welcome to have them, but they hold no weight as a logical or ethical argument. I might say "Do I put peanut butter and jam in a sandwich? No. Do I cut the crusts off? No." but that has exactly zero value as a condemnation of people who like peanut butter and jam sandwiches with the crusts cut off. It's just a statement of my preferences. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that people who do are wrong. Without actual evidence or a logically sound argument as to why sex with dogs is wrong, the best you can really do is agree to disagree.
Sorry for the long post, but I find it pays to be thorough in these matters. If you want to debate against zoophilia (which, just for the record, can also be entirely non-sexual) by all means do, I enjoy hearing people's arguments. But please, don't just present a bunch of logical fallacies and expect them to hold water.
/u/danpetman has publicly confessed to the most heinous crime against God and against Man! In consequence of the sickening perversity and immorality of the act, he must be made a public example of, to send a message to all other jam-cutters that they have no place in society!
Oh noes! I dun got founded out! It's true, I am secretly a fan of logically consistent arguments. How can I ever hide my shame? Also, what on earth is a jam-cutter?
EDIT: Yup, it took me almost 4 hours to get the joke. About the sandwich, and the jam, and oh god I can't stop facepalming. Evidently while I can manage a logical debate, understanding the blindingly obvious is a skill that eludes me >.<
[deleted]
To be more accurate, I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out why your arguments are invalid. They'd be invalid regardless of my position on the subject. Poor logic is poor logic whether you agree with the argument it's trying to make or not.
I'm sorry that you consider hearing someone else's viewpoint a waste of your time, it must make it very difficult for you to have conversations with people when anything they say that you don't agree with you just blank out and ignore. I suppose it makes it easy to retain your beliefs in the face of evidence though; who'd want to waste their life thinking about stuff when you can be wrong but definite?
Keep in mind that not everyone feels the same way you do in regards to zoophilia, and that is irrespective of whether they are zoos or not. Please respect others and treat them as you wish to be treated. If you wish to complain about a user or the way the subreddit is run, feel free to message the mods.
We don't give two shits about your dogs(who must have such blue balls, poor things) or your crappy, near Bible thumping, opinions.
[deleted]
Way to not read anything I wrote, in context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
Read it.
[deleted]
You do realize that Wikipedia articles (especially ones on controversial subjects like this one) get edited and curated by lots of different people, most of whom have no vested interest in the subject? And that everything needs to have appropriate citations? That's sort of the whole point of Wikipedia; to present as dispassionate and balanced a view as possibly by allowing all parties to contribute to the discussion. You wouldn't dismiss the Wikipedia page on Al Qaeda as being "created and edited by terrorists" would you?
But you can follow the sources and read the original academic material by Masters, Beetz, Miletski, Dekkers, etc.
I think it's fair to say that actually learning something is not what /u/fuckcirclejerkmods had in mind when he strode in here to condemn us all and helpfully advise us to "get some help." Why let facts get in the way of your prejudices when you can just dismiss people are mentally ill and/or not worth your time and continue on in blissful ignorance?
Maybe not. But it still doesn't hurt recommending it.
Zoophiles are the last people to hurt animals you tool. That would be as if I'd assume that every husband necessarily beats and rapes their wife. Many zoos spend so much on the care, feed etc needs of their animals, your girlfriend would be jealous why you don't maintain her so well.
Also, good comparison. Please tell me hamburgers made from 4 year olds similarly disturb you. Because there is a 90% chance you like to eat 4 year olds. Many Americans traditionally roast 4 year olds on the 4th of July, and nobody seems to care. But feeling the wrong way when petting a dog on the head, Oh Jesus...
Bye, have fun hating...
[deleted]
Amazing, you troll manage to gather all the how-not-to argue examples in one thread.
Do you know of an actual statistic of how many people who have sex with an animal are hurting them v.s. how many there are who are making sure they are not hurting them?
Or are these just your assumptions?
Btw why don't you want to go to Olive Garden with your dogs? Do they have a no-dog policy? I think that would be a good day out.
Also, the dog that fucked me actively seems to disagree with you on a lot of things.
[deleted]
Now that you mention it... I've never been to Olive Garden