submitted 2015-05-13 00:14:07 by incredibledentist
incredibledentist 2 points on 2015-05-13 00:21:09
It's kind of weird seeing a general consensus on a site I've read for years that zoo stuff is OK.
In that thread, several people argue about consent issues, and it's very possible the poster NevynFox might be among us.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 5 points on 2015-05-13 00:28:30
Haven't read the whole Fark thread since I'm on mobile, but this part from the source article:
Kellmer is forbidden also from having contact with any dogs or cats, including his own six pets.
That's my worst nightmare, I can't even begin to imagine that. And all that has to happen is getting caught just once. I don't think I could keep living like that, honestly. One person in the thread said "that line cracked him up." How is banning somebody from ever seeing their pets again funny? I could understand thinking that was just, if you're anti-zoo, but funny? I don't get that at all.
Sorry I kinda went off on a tangent, I just think about the "no more contact with aninals ever" thing a lot, since it seems to happen in every bestiality case.
incredibledentist 3 points on 2015-05-13 00:44:38
Well, the article fark linked to is flawed too, apparently; it reported that the man's partner caught him in flagrante delicto, other articles report her sister caught him.
I thought about raising that in the thread, but I'd rather keep my head under the parapet there, if you know what I mean.
I just enjoyed reading positive zoo comments on a site where one of the most famous threads is about a guy who fucked a dead dog in front of a daycare centre.
Sorry I kinda went off on a tangent, I just think about the "no more contact with aninals ever" thing a lot, since it seems to happen in every bestiality case.
Laws created by flawed morality?
It's just weird people trying to paint dogs, or stallions as victims of sexual assault, in sexual encounters that they initiate.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2015-05-13 02:52:06
Yeah It also gives me shivers down my spine losing one's pets that way.
bonniebubblegum 1 point on 2015-06-12 01:11:27
that would be worse than any nightmare i could have
electricfoxx 2 points on 2015-05-13 01:20:59
It's funny, because it's homophobic. </sarcasm>
incredibledentist 1 point on 2015-05-13 01:39:33
Meh, the headline is perhaps a bit insensitive.
But, the posts in the thread itself are pretty enlightened.
Battlecropsdogs, cats, snakes, ungulates 3 points on 2015-05-13 02:16:27
One comment says
You say animals can't consent, but they can attempt to withhold consent - if this dog did not want to participate, it would have bitten him on the ass (or worse!). Similarly, if you try fark a cat, he (or she) has wicked back claws with which it can attempt to withhold consent. Since an animal can attempt to withhold consent, that implies it can, therefore consent by not demonstrating lack of consent.
If an animal can demonstrate lack of consent, it can, therefore, consent.
Honestly, I never thought of it that way. I've been thinking about that for a few minutes now, haha.
And
I want to believe this is true, but it could just as easily be a vindictive girlfriend as the only evidence seems to be her word.
That seems true, too... Do they have any other evidence? That scares me a lot as well, that you can be charged and punished for bestiality without any solid evidence whatsoever.
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 8 points on 2015-05-13 02:48:44
"If convicted, Kellmer faces 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine"--another ridiculous sentence.
KynophileDog lover 3 points on 2015-05-13 03:33:44
I've read this news story before, and it's terrible. The comments are pretty funny though, with a few exceptions. I love how the whole conversation gets diverted with the idea that the husky was female and wearing a strap-on. I want this to happen to me (minus being caught and sent to prison of course), but a strap-on on a dog is just too bizarre even for my tastes.
Applejack_AppleSpeakin' in fancy! 3 points on 2015-05-13 03:50:00
You probably shouldn't have sex with someone's animal without their permission first.
Ten years in prison though? Seems rather steep considering no one (including the dog, presumably) got hurt.
incredibledentist 2 points on 2015-05-13 11:30:31
You probably shouldn't have sex with someone's animal without their permission first.
Yeah, it's fencehopping.
But it's really difficult to argue that a male animal having sex with a man or woman is rape, isn't it?
Ten years in prison though? Seems rather steep considering no one (including the dog, presumably) got hurt.
It's crazy.
Sapphire_seamEquus 1 point on 2015-05-13 10:49:26
unjust law is unjust -_-
yelikedags 1 point on 2015-05-19 15:52:38
Definitely worse to be caught than to be bottom for a dog. Lol. Without a doubt.
bonniebubblegum 1 point on 2015-06-12 01:12:43
how? it implies that the dog is doing most of the work.
/r/zoophilia archive
It's kind of weird seeing a general consensus on a site I've read for years that zoo stuff is OK.
In that thread, several people argue about consent issues, and it's very possible the poster NevynFox might be among us.
Haven't read the whole Fark thread since I'm on mobile, but this part from the source article:
That's my worst nightmare, I can't even begin to imagine that. And all that has to happen is getting caught just once. I don't think I could keep living like that, honestly. One person in the thread said "that line cracked him up." How is banning somebody from ever seeing their pets again funny? I could understand thinking that was just, if you're anti-zoo, but funny? I don't get that at all.
Sorry I kinda went off on a tangent, I just think about the "no more contact with aninals ever" thing a lot, since it seems to happen in every bestiality case.
Well, the article fark linked to is flawed too, apparently; it reported that the man's partner caught him in flagrante delicto, other articles report her sister caught him.
I thought about raising that in the thread, but I'd rather keep my head under the parapet there, if you know what I mean.
I just enjoyed reading positive zoo comments on a site where one of the most famous threads is about a guy who fucked a dead dog in front of a daycare centre.
Laws created by flawed morality?
It's just weird people trying to paint dogs, or stallions as victims of sexual assault, in sexual encounters that they initiate.
Yeah It also gives me shivers down my spine losing one's pets that way.
that would be worse than any nightmare i could have
It's funny, because it's homophobic. </sarcasm>
Meh, the headline is perhaps a bit insensitive.
But, the posts in the thread itself are pretty enlightened.
One comment says
Honestly, I never thought of it that way. I've been thinking about that for a few minutes now, haha.
And
That seems true, too... Do they have any other evidence? That scares me a lot as well, that you can be charged and punished for bestiality without any solid evidence whatsoever.
"If convicted, Kellmer faces 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine"--another ridiculous sentence.
I've read this news story before, and it's terrible. The comments are pretty funny though, with a few exceptions. I love how the whole conversation gets diverted with the idea that the husky was female and wearing a strap-on. I want this to happen to me (minus being caught and sent to prison of course), but a strap-on on a dog is just too bizarre even for my tastes.
You probably shouldn't have sex with someone's animal without their permission first.
Ten years in prison though? Seems rather steep considering no one (including the dog, presumably) got hurt.
Yeah, it's fencehopping.
But it's really difficult to argue that a male animal having sex with a man or woman is rape, isn't it?
It's crazy.
unjust law is unjust -_-
Definitely worse to be caught than to be bottom for a dog. Lol. Without a doubt.
how? it implies that the dog is doing most of the work.