After 2 years with my boyfriend I let him know about the intimate relationship I've had with my dogs . We have plans to be married and I felt like it's something pretty significant he should know before marrying me . I had a relationship with my first dog as a young teen years before having any kind of relationship with a human . I'm almost 30 now and my feelings/attraction towards dogs has never gone away -- although I've had several normal relationships with human men . The current boyfriend took it ok . He wasn't "grossed out" -- but he does look at it as cheating on him . If he finds out I have any kind of sexual contact with my dog , he will treat it no different than if I was cheating on him with another human . Now I'm regretting opening up to him. We have had a great relationship ((emotionally and physically )) for the past 2 years -- and now he wants me to give up part of myself. I dunno if I'm really asking for advice or not -- just waned to vent. This is my first post on Reddit after a whole lot of creeping so I guess I'm just throwing my confession out everywhere after a lifetime of silence . Haha
/r/zoophilia archive
I think your boyfriend may be worried that you'd start loving your dog more than him, and or being more attracted to your dog.
Right . But I explained to him I've been doing this forever . The only thing that's changing is that he now knows . Dunno how to get through to him that this isn't something new, it's just new to him . Or maybe I should just be pleased he isn't horrified all together
I think he sees it as you having your cake and then wanting pie to
Maybe . So give up a huge part of who I am or hide it from him ? Hmmm
Maybe try and get him into it? If he doesn't think it's gross then you might have a shot
"Get him into it"? Seriously?
You seem to be treating this like a fetish. I don't much like that attitude.
It kinda is
Are you saying zoophilia is a fetish? Lmao what?
Please explain.
EDIT: I wasn't asking for a downvote, but for an answer.
EDIT2: In the case you meant that zoophilia is a fetish, no, it isn't.
Let me just take a quick copy-paste from something I'm currently writing.
let me just explain the word 'sexuality' and 'fetish' to you.
Here are the defenitions:
Sexuality
a person's sexual orientation or preference.
synonyms: sexual orientation, orientation.
Fetish
a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.
synonyms: fixation, sexual fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania.
As you can see, the defenition of fetish tells us it's an abnormal sexual attraction for objects, items, parts of a body, etc.
Non-human animals are NOT objects, they are living creatures who can think and choose, just like us.
In fact, humans are also animals. And the definition of sexuality tells us what your sexual preference is, which is in this case, non-human animals.
I don't see how it is either. Basically calling homosexuality a fetish as well.
if a boy wants to fuck another boy because it seems kinky, but he doesnt care for the rest of the deal (the relation and the being together) then it's a fetish. if someone is attracted to a person, loves the way they walk, they way they act and are, and it only happens when its of the same sex, then its homosexuality.
but apparently, according to you its a fetish, sure. because my dick goes up when a dog is giving me certain attention. the fact that I'm emotionally bond to a dog, on a level that I never will bond with any human doesnt matter. It's just a fetish after all
I'm with zoophilia being a orientation. I was agreeing with /u/WarCanine. If you get a kink for fucking another man it's still is homosexuality no matter if you do it just for the sexual gratification since he is another living being with a mind of his own that you naturally find attractive. Which is what separates it from being a fetish. Fetishes are attraction to things that are typically not attractive such as objects or body parts.
I'm sorry, I think my interpretation went wrong :P And I do agree
Not really. It's an orientation.
Although WarCanine´s answer matches my own beliefs (and is directly from the textbook,btw), I can understand why many refer to "zoophilia" as a fetish.
There´s no other form of sexual conduct that has an equal amount of blurred lines as "zoophilia". Someone willing to take a deep dive into the so called "zoophilia scene" won´t have too many problems in finding more than enough examples for fetishism. The "animal cock/pussy lover" might even give it clearly away with his screen name...only parts of the animal are seen as desirable, the rest of the animal doesn´t matter. There´s also a big fraction using animals as a means of degradation in their s/m "games". And don´t forget the legions of people only in it for "zoo voyeurism"...another "feature" of our scene that can easily be filed under fetishism.
Regarding the definitions of fetishism and orientation, I just want to add something: The nature of a fetish is: it won´t and cannot love you back. Latex,fur and leathers won´t hug you or kiss you.
You see, lots of confusion....and all of that just because the z-word has become a synonym for bestiality.
To summarize it:
"zoophilia" CAN be a fetish for some. In this case, I wrote "zoophilia" to hint at the fact this word is used completely wrong by many, in- and outsiders alike. Not having a clear definition with an additional lack of separation indeed is harmful. The idea that zoophilia is a fetish can be traced back to this sad fact.
whereas true zoophilia never is a fetish. We zoos actually feel a deep love for our quadruped partner, comparable to what "normal" partners feel for each other. The non-fetishistic nature of true zoophilia is etched within the very definition of zoophilia itself as a sexually and emotionally MUTUAL and respectful interspecies relationship that places the animal´s wellbeing far ahead of our own sexual gratification. Short: If you´re a fetishist, you´re not a zoo. If you´re a zoo, you´re not a fetishist.
It isn't a fetish for everybody. I consider zoosexuality my orientation.
The second option, "hide it from him" is not even an option in my opinion. You are conspiring to cheat on him behind his back right now.
I ought not need to explain the problems with that.
Or, you know, the fact that sleeping with someone else while you are in a committed relationship is literally the definition of cheating on someone.
Just because the sex would be with a member of a different species doesn't mean that it suddenly "doesn't count".
Hopefully you don't take this the wrong way, but your post raises a few red flags for me.
Well, how is it not cheating on him? The way you say this makes it seem as though you disagree.
Honestly I quite like his attitude. He treats a relationship with a dog as, in many ways, reasonably equivalent to a relationship with another human. I wish more people had an attitude like this.
What? Why?
The only reason I could think of is "so I could keep cheating on him with dogs behind his back", and that's a pretty poor reason!
He wants a monogamous relationship. You... I'm not sure what you want.
Would you be fine with him sleeping with other humans? Do you want an "open" relationship? There's nothing wrong with that, but you don't make it clear... In some ways it sounds more like to you, your relationships with dogs "don't count". And why shouldn't they count? This isn't a rhetorical question, by the way. I'd like to hear your actual answer.
You are attracted to both humans and dogs, it seems. Though it's certainly not the same, there is a strong analogy to be drawn with someone who is bisexual and attracted to men and women. By that I mean, someone who's bisexual might find their attractions to both men and women to be important to them, and a big part of who they are, but if they are entering into a monogamous relationship, part of that entails sleeping exclusively with someone of some particular sex.
Likewise, you are attracted to both men and dogs. You are entering a relationship with a human. He, clearly, wants it to be monogamous. If you are going to enter into such a relationship with him, you are thus obligated to not sleep with anyone else, canine, human, or otherwise.
If you cannot make that commitment, you should not enter into such a relationship with him.
Honestly, I'd say he's in the right here and you're in the wrong.
Now! For the record, there are other options. Polyamorous relationships and open relationships are perfectly legitimate agreements to enter into with others. And it's even conceivable that if you talk to your boyfriend about the possibility of an open relationship, he might be okay with it (though of course, that entails allowing him to sleep with others as well). Or you could find someone else who is open to such a thing - though when you are talking about zoophilia, any sort of acceptance is pretty difficult to come by, so I don't envy your chances.
Anyway so yeah. You have options. But also you threw up a ton of red flags just now. Just what is your relationship with dogs to you that you seem to be perplexed as to him seeing it as cheating?
Perfectly said
Swibblestein nailed it, you are cheating. I can understand wishing you hadn't said anything, but the fact of the matter is that he appears to be expecting a monogamous relationship and you continuing what you have been doing is unacceptable to him. A marriage takes commitment to keep it working, but without trust, there's very little incentive for him to even try.
Assuming you've responded to him in any manner similar to what you've shown here, I wouldn't be too surprised if he didn't trust you even if you are faithful to him; once bitten, twice shy as the saying goes. You have to see it from his side, he's just found out that you haven't been faithful to him and it's likely you don't intend to start being so. You may wish to reconsider your plans for marriage, especially if you are considering continuing as you have. Assuming he can overcome all of that, don't think it will be like before, you have likely lost some of his trust and he will be rightfully suspicious of you. You will have to be diligent to earn his trust...again.
What u/swibblestein and u/egoldstein said. If I were in your position, I´d cut out on the accusatory stuff like the "How dares he demand me to give up part of myself" and rather be glad he hasn´t dumped you in the minute he learned that you´re not only cheating on him, but also that you´re cheating on him with animals. Be glad he seems to be one of the very permissive kind and hasn´t called the police, PETA or any other organisation giving you lots of legal trouble. There are many examples of outcomes in similar situations that are not exactly that uncomplicated and relaxing as yours.
What I wonder about the most is your complaints about having "to give up a part of you" in a relationship. Rather egocentric, isn´t it? Relation- and partnerships are exactly about that, about compromises, about giving away a little to receive something else in exchange.
What I meant about giving something up is the dog himself .
That´s a predictable outcome when someone tries to "dance on two weddings", as we Germans say. It seems as if you have to decide now, either your dog or your boyfriend. Given all the circumstances, I´d assume you´d better decide for your boyfriend and hand over your dog to a friend who will take good care of him (and hopefully won´t notice something strange in the dog´s behavior). Why? Because it´s gonna be a helluva fuckup when your choice is doggie...your boyfriend will feel pushed back in such a huge amount that I can literally imagine what people will whisper behind your back in the near future.
Once again, speaking openly about having sex with animals, even with a soon-to-be husband, might not have been the best decision ever made. Skylla and Charybdis await...
You maneuvered yourself into this Catch22 situation. Whatever you do, it´ll be wrong. Plus, now you have a person who knows you and may be a potential danger to your ...well, everything. Haven´t you considered preparing your boyfriend for this revelation of yours? Let me repeat once again how "gifted" you should feel he´s not one of the guys picking up the phone, calling 911 as an answer.
Nonetheless, I guess you´ll have to say goodbye to one of your "options". Decision time.
I just love how regularly (it seems to me) people on here say how they popped it to their boyfriend, and similar constellations, and meanwhile for the life of me I can't find a date like that on purpose.
So much fun, thx, many world. /irrelevantfrustration
You guys act like it's a easy choice between dump the dog or dump the boyfriend. I could honestly live just fine not ever having sex with a human but the companionship I get from another person can't be replaced with a dog . They're both important relationships but aren't interchangeable . I'd like to keep both . I didn't say that I DONT see it as cheating , i was just saying that he does . Even tho not the same as being with another person. There's no late nights out , no risk of STI's, no risk of pregnancy , etc . It's not the same as cheating with another person although yes - still cheating . If I got my way , he'd be ok with things being as they always have , just with the boyfriend knowing about it . If we can't come to an agreement , hopefully at least he won't continue to insist on my dog leaving . Maybe neutering would be a compromise if he can't accept an open relationship
Please don't tell me 'dumping the dog' means actually getting rid of your dog.
If it does: You didn't deserve a dog in the first place.
If it doesn't: Then what does it mean?
Also, it looks to me that you're only sexually and not romantically attracted to dogs, but vice versa for humans.
This is something I've never seen before.
I'd say being romantically attracted to something is way more important than sexually attracted, but I'd say a dog is more worth than a human and don't want you to get rid of your dog.
Well, that's because it is.
Relationships with human+human or human+non-human animal are indeed different in some cases, but it doesn't mean it's entirely different.
It's technically still the same thing, but it goes and feels different, even though I've never had a relationship with a human (Luckily), it's still pretty obvious.
Yes, okay?
Don't spay/neuter/castrate/whatever animals.
That's animal cruelty and shouldn't be done unless an animal has an extreme high chance of dying / horrible suffering if it doesn't happen, which should be the same for humans.
Your dog has to pay because of your mistakes?
Do you seriously have to choose 'the easy way out'?
I feel like this is your problem.
But also your dog's problem and feel bad for him. Alot.
I don't see why someone would get into a relationship with someone that clearly doesn't view animals in the same frame of mind that they did(granted im also pretty much asexual w/ people). Like maybe not explicitly zoo, but someone who doesn't even view dogs as a life commitment. OP sounds like they don't even, but they're probably emotional which is feeding into their responses to some degree. If I were in this predicament, I'd cut my losses, realize that this person probably wouldn't be right for me in the end due to how integral my dogs are in my life, and end it. I probably would have chosen to do so long before we got to proposals and coming out, though.
Wow! This is...pardon me, YOU are wrong in so many ways.
Maybe the best advice one can hand out to you is to stop the relationships with both parties, dog AND boyfriend. I hardly can remember running into a more selfish attitude than yours. All is centered around your comfyness, your ego, your needs. "What? I can´t have both? Well, cut off doggie´s balls, then! (you owe me an explanation what neutering would change...unless his dick gets amputated, your dog still can "perform")...What?? Cruel for the animal? Well, then my boyfriend has to learn to live with it!! Even if he said he cannot. He HAS to! It´s about me,me,ME,MEEEE!!! All others should make sacrifices, but not MEEE! "
Seriously: what is it you can offer him as a compromise? Cutting off doggie´s balls although this won´t make it impossible to have intercourse with him? Forcing your selfish "Me wants doggiefuck!" attitude down your boyfriend´s throat? What is it YOU sacrifice? Rhetorical question, of course. nothing! You just want to go on with your stuff uninterrupted.
The blatant lack of respect is obvious. You don´t respect your boyfriend and his idea of a relationship without cheating, you don´t respect your animal´s wellbeing. The only person you respect is you.
Sad. I´m outta here...and OP, please do yourself a favor and learn that relationships always demand sacrifices...not only from others, but from you as well. Not ready for that = not ready for ANY relationship, bi- or quadruped.
While I may not wholly disagree with you, we do want people coming here for council to actually listen to us, and provoking them only hurts them and zoos in general in the end. Sure, that necessitates 'sheltering them' or what have you, but it's more effective if they get the cuddly, slightly less honest answer that they'll actually listen to than the death-metal level of honesty and moral enforcement that you dish out. This one had a happy(ish) ending, but she's not coming back because she got some pretty hefty backlash, which is still a net loss for us.
You really think this is a loss for us? We zoos are frequently accused of being self centered, egoistic narcicists (still don´t know why you call it that; the Greek juvenile falling in love with his own reflection was called Narcissos, not Narcicissos) ; shouldn´t we do everything to avoid supporting this prejudice?
The hefty backlash you mentioned wasn´t caused by US, it was caused by the OP´s answers. Don´t blame me or anybody else for that, I´m not to blame when someone only has his/her own wellbeing, his/her own comfyness in mind and is shying away from any discomfort for him-/herself.
When a heroin addict demands advice, you tell him where to get help and how to improve his often poverished situation. You don´t encourage him to shoot up some more, you don´t tell him where you can score good and pure smack for cheap, you don´t tell him where good neigborhoods for a burglary are.
Help and support aren´t limited to indifferent acceptance. The problems OP faces are selfmade and I have to address that in order to identify a REAL solution for the problem, and not just doctoring the symptoms. The real problem here is OP´s selfishness. She wouldn´t hesitate to get her dog mutilated/"neutered" to "have her ways", she even expects her boyfriend to fully adapt to her before even thinking about changing her OWN ways of life. If this is what her future marriage is based on, a silenced boyfriend who has to deal with her dogfuckery although he voiced his discontent, this´ll gonna be a hellua marriage, I promise. You can deny problems, you can try to brush ´em under the carpet, but all of that won´t make the problems disappear. It seems as if OP and her boyfriend have two completely different approaches towards partnership, two that won´t mix well. It also seems as if OP´s dog isn´t much more than a fetish, a live dildo...you simply don´t neuter a dog without a good MEDICAL reason (set aside the fact that neutering won´t exclude the possibility to still have intercourse with him) if you love your dog and feel more for him than an average person.
So, who lost something? Have we? Is it really a loss for us when a person with such dubious motives and an obvious self centered definition of relationship departs? I don´t think so. Remember what I said in here so often now: All of us, any of us zoophiles is an ambassador for our orientation. As an ambassador, you are perceived differently, like under a magnifying glass. Example: as an average American tourist, you can get drunk, can walk around with utterly tasteless clothes, you can visit a brothel etc..but if you´re an ambassador, this kind of behavior will fall back onto your own feet as well as desecrating the general image of Americans. We all have to create some awareness of that in ourselves if we want things to change someday. We´re being observed and judged by society...let´s just not help them in condemning us by supporting inacceptable attitudes like the one OP has so impressively shared with us.
As far as I as a true zoo am concerned, no loss for me here.
You don't have to convince me of anything here. I even agree with the stuff aimed at me.
Think of it this way: the person isn't the loss. It's them doing the opposite of our informed advice out of spite and making the local news that's the loss. It's not just taking in every morally bankrupt miscreant we can, it's damage control. Stopping them from self destructing and blemishing your orientation at the same time. Given time and tactfulness to keep her open to our ideas and values, we could have even nudged her philosophy a little closer to the more acceptable norm around these parts. Part of that tactfulness entails white lies or moral redactions to placate them, on occasion. The kind that taste bitter to those privy to them, but have the sweetest of aftertastes. In cases like these, I like to reference how religious missionaries go about converting people. Not because it's palatable to do (it's not), but because it's incredibly effective.
I disagree. As a guy who´s in the "zoo" online community for over 20 years, I´ve never seen proof for effective "nudging" someone´s "philosophy" towards a more acceptable norm. People may submit under the dogma in pretense only to continue participating in the community...but what they do behind closed doors and drawn curtains won´t be changed. I also don´t think that comparing us to religious missionaries is beneficial...even if missionizing has been incredibly effective. I highly doubt that "converting" a longtime bestialist and fencehopper to zoophilia would make this individual more acceptable for us born zoos as well as for society. Some deeds will stick to you until the very day you die. The "Saulus into Paulus" transformation narrative has its limits too, you know.
You surely have stumbled across some of my posts since you arrived in here. Do I look like a person preferring a tip-toe approach to you? Whenever someone posts something requesting our opinions, I assume he or she honestly wants to hear what we think. And that´s exactly what I do...I type what I think. I prefer honesty over politeness and false empathy. I prefer one thousand real enemies over one false friend.
It´s not the "hug box" attitude we as a community lack, it´s honesty. Honestly voicing criticism even if your own "teammates" are targeted with it is what is needed. If we zoos ever want to close the huge gap between us and society, it´s unavoidable to "clean up our very own turf". That´s how I see it, backed by years of observation. Being too permissive, too polite and "tolerant"/indifferent is what has caused the shit we zoos are forced to live in today. The original idea of zoophilia got lost, the z-word was robbed from us and people like Aluzky annexed what was left. We zoos tried to "politely" defend ourselves, but to no avail, the "beasty gentrification" continued. Are you really surprised that some militant minds like myself emerge? Invasion creates militant partisans.
Fair point, but that's mostly because none of you ever received training as a religious missionary. I haven't either, but I have received equivalent training to these ends. That said, I'm far from peak effectiveness. I take on the strategy of simple logic moreso than emotional manipulation, which is the most effective. Getting into the head of the other person is half the battle. Making it look like you're friends is the third quarter, then showing concern and recommending a change is the home stretch. That's a heavily simplified representation, but you can't get through to people that haven't let you in yet.
They don't need to be 'more acceptable'. You don't need to have a hate the sin love the sinner attitude, but faking it helps, because that's what makes them more accessible to be changed. Even a minute change in their behavior is better than nothing, or a seed of doubt about their more illicit actions. A seed you need to wait for and exploit.
Honestly, you seem the type that doesn't pay regard to the emotions of others and doesn't understand the principles of emotional manipulation outside of creating moral homogeny, and even after consistent prompting that it weakens your own influence here, you keep on at it like a bear tearing at garbage cans and hurling them into the street. You might prefer having real enemies and honesty, but like the bear, you're liable to provoke people enough to cause you and those like you personal harm. If a bear could speak, do you think those around him would feed him if he said he only cared about humans as a food source and thought they were worthless otherwise? Of course not, and in the face of scarcity, that approach will leave him to starve. He may prefer honesty, but the better outcome is saying he wants to make friends and then eventually get that human into the habit of feeding him; perhaps even developing more genuine feelings over time, after that shift. Plus, this works quite well on you, what with your hair trigger temper. Convenient redactions and careful phrasing of this same information allows me to carry out civil discourse with you. Discourse that would otherwise devolve into a screaming match that would only serve to polarize us and drive us to further distance ourselves morally. Well, that's not entirely true. See, the above isn't what naturally comes to mind. My own tactfulness comes naturally, as I've never been partial to being emotional or having 'brutal honesty'. Years of careful observation have yielded that this was the ideal path to develop my own communication skills.
Additionally, brutal honesty is wasted on someone who has no investment in the community. There's no weight behind our words until they form, or at least perceive, positive relationships. We are not an authority to them, nor are we large enough to imply any kind of authority. That means we have to create our own, sometimes on a case-by-case basis. Imagine if a death cult told a kid "kill your parents, now, and you shall be saved". The kid wouldn't do it. Expose him to their scriptures, vilify those around the kid, but justify it to the kid as him having been decieved, or those around him being deceived rather than him being at fault, then make sure that he perceives you as his closest friends and allies, drop hints here and there about it, revisit relevant scriptures several times(persuasion through repetition), then tell him to kill his parents in order to save them or what have you, and there's a good chance he'll do it(as in, an actual chance). This isn't a death cult, of course, but you get the idea. The same principles apply here, to varying degrees.
They are not mutually exclusive, despite my emphasis on mild deception. You need to amass more power, and that means giving this community purchase to grow past 20 active members.
On the local news, sure. On here, no. There aren't enough observers for our words to change perception at large. Persuading people against doing certain things helps to prevent perception from changing against you, though.
Throwing the dirty turf out to the side of the field isn't cleaning it up. You need to keep it on the field and wash it with water, not sandpaper. The woman here could have widened that divide had she been in a different city with more conservative sexual views. Nothing like another shark attack to get shark fin soup back in popularity.
The shit you're forced to live through today is just as easily attributed to dozens of outside factors and regional influences. Zoophiles and bestialists were vilified by outside factors first. Not because of some quality of how the act was carried out, but simply because the pairing was taboo for the same reason a black and a white person getting married could result in them getting hunted 100 years ago. It's just as possible that without zoophiles or bestialists existing at all in the modern day that there would still be some mounting concern about it. Back to regionality, if I was a zoophile or zoosexual... it would be a mild inconvenience, at most. Few people have concerns about it here.
And there's no scaring off Aluzky with 'honesty'. He may be too entrenched in his own ideas to be significantly influenced by you, but yelling at him is still less effective.
Are you defending anything here? There is no defense needed here, in this thread, on the person you helped scare off. It's a good offense that is needed here. An offense that you don't like, but that the science supports. You tend to assimilate with people you perceive as friends. It could be as simple as picking up mannerisms or a new favorite food, or it can constitute a moral shift, or even strengthened willpower. Friends can form the backbone a drug addict needs to get clean, or to escape depression, or to alter their moral code. It's a well observed phenomena that individuals tailor their morality to most benefit themselves. There are exceptions, of course, but morality has a large part of that at its foundation. The natural conclusion of this paragraph should be quite salient to you.
[deleted]
I stopped reading at "emotional manipulation"....I don´t want to manipulate people to have my ways. If you need "soft brainwashing" to convince people, you haven´t convinced anybody at all. We don´t need a "zoo Jim Jones", we don´t need manipulators or a manipulative system like Scientology....zoophilia is an orientation, not a sect, not a religion.
Maybe we want different things. I´m good without public applause for sleeping with mares, I´m good without being admired for "living with such an exotic and difficult sexuality". I just want to be left alone. You seem to aim at other goals...but please note that only a few of your goals match mine as a practicing zoophile without a lack of empathy for the "normal" folks.
Erm... let's revisit what I said, because you misread that. (Or if you don't read the rest of this, the bottom line is that it's not emotional manipulation so much as it is keeping them open and opening them further to considering what we have to say. This isn't brainwashing because the final say on whether they change is ultimately their own. We're just offsetting the apathy that comes with being online and not meeting in person, at the end of the day.)
This means that I don't do it, despite its effectiveness. I excel at logical persuasion, not emotional appeals. However, I apply the understanding that perceived closeness enhances persuasiveness, and I decide against provocation accordingly.
You need them to see some sort of shared investment(aka friendship) before they'll consider changing themselves fundamentally because people on the internet said to. That's the extent of the 'manipulation'. That's not to say that the system is as sterile as this description makes it out to be, though. There are still authentic relationships being formed in the process.
Well, for me, at least. I'm not so cold that I can just rinse and repeat and forget about them after convincing them of something. FWIW, almost all of my interactions on here are organic and not according to any model of persuasion. Believe it or not, I'm... reasonable and not easily provoked, and prefer other people being... reasonable and unprovoked. This approach comes naturally to me, and it's rather convenient that this approach is also rather effective.
I'm here to help with the equality bit, I don't care to romanticize it. It's just not a real ethical concern, barring irresponsibility. There are other reasons at play, but none of immediate concern to any of us.
NO NEVER DO THAT. Neutering a dog is super detrimental to a male dog health, it increases the risk of bone cancer, blood cancer, bladder cancer, it increase the risk of behavioral problems appearing, increases the risk of phobias appearing, it increases risk of ligaments breaking and increase the risk of several other health and behavioral problems (same is for female dogs but not as bad as it is for male dogs)
Google: "negative consequences of neutering" if you don't believe me.
You may as well take your dog to a vet and put him to sleep, that would be more ethical for him in the long run than cutting off his balls. /hyperbole. (Do not put your dog to sleep, I'm just trying to explain how bad it is to neutering him, give the dog to some one else who can take care of him (without neutering him) or just don't neuter him and find some other solution.
Also, even if he gets neutered, that is not a guaranty that he will stop desiring sex and looking for sex with you.
I don't think it's ethical to neuter this dog either but for what it's worth most of the health issues with neutering are associated with early neutering, like before at least 2 years old. It's still not ideal but the health risks go down significantly as the dog matures.
Early neutering is very bad, late neutering is still quite as bad. The dog will get no benefit from it, will only get negative effects on his health and quality of life.
This is not entirely true. Given, neutering is not typically done for the dog's benefit, but to claim that it has only negative impact is to be disingenuous, at best. If nothing else, his risk of prostate problems drops dramatically and his risk of testicular cancer is reduced to zero. That's at least two benefits, which is certainly higher than the none you claim.
I don't think neutering is the best solution in this case, but that is beside the point. I am dismayed to see this kind of tactic being used among zoophiles, it makes it appear as though without the sex, there's nothing for the dog to live for and no reason to have him. FFS, what about the remaining 95% of the time when you aren't fucking, is that so unimportant?
Your position and claim is so easily demonstrated to be wrong, it is an embarassment to see you use it.
Risk of a dog getting testicular cancer is 10% So, 10 out of 100 dogs will get it. Risk of that dog dieing from testicular cancer is 10%, so, 1 of those 10 dogs will die from it (testicular cancer has very good prognosis) So, neutering 100 male dogs only saves ONE LIFE. But guess what, when you do that math of all the increases of other diseases that appear by being neutered, of those 100 dogs, like 30 will die because of lost of hormones related issuers, where if 100 where intact, only 1 would die from testicular cancer.
So math:
Neuter 100 dogs: 30 dies and 1 gets saved from testicular cancer. Not neuter 100 dogs: 30 gets saves but 1 die.
So tell, me how is neutering male dogs something that doesn't have a negative impact on male dogs?
And maybe you don't knwo this, but some breed s are very prone to some diseases, fro example, golden retrievers have a 25% chance of getting blood cancer (a death sentence) neutering increases the risk of blood cancer by X4. 25% X4 = 100% A golden retriever will almost always get blood cancer and die from it (unless he dies from something else before that happens)
"Between 60-80% of all golden retrievers will die from some form of cancer" ←And that number goes up if the retriever is neutered. Bone cancer risk also doubles or quadruples with being neutered.
Removing body parts to prevent sickness s bad medicine, would you like to have one of your kidneys removed just so you don't have a chance of having kidney cancer? How about me removing your arms and legs as you could also get cancer there.
And about the prostate, I suspect there are other treatment methods that do not require total lost of hormones. You don't see humans with enlarged prostates being neutered left and right, correct? If humans can have their prostate problems solved without castration, why can't the same be done in dongs?
Two benefits that comes at the expenses of causing 20+ non-benefits (some of them being a sure death sentence) those non-benefits makes those 2 benefits become ZERO. Think of benefits as being positive numbers and non-benefits being negative numbers. +2 + -20 = -18, you got no benefit from it.
And even in the cases where an individual dog can benefit from it, the masses do not. Like I said, neutering 100 dogs causes more deaths than what it saves.
But by all means, if the pros and cons have been evaluated and a dog is bound to have a miserable life or die if not intermediately neutered, then neuter him if that is the only option. But don't neuter him as a preventive thing.
Is not about sex, majority of those male dogs won¿'t be ever let near a bitch or human so they can satisfy their sex lives. Is about their HEALTH. Neutering them is detrimental to their health. As such, doing that should be avoided unless there is no other option (like the dog being diagnosed with malignant testicular cancer, in such case, obviously neuter)
I don't understand your point.
I dare you and welcome you to prove it wrong.
That's not the way it works, how can I disprove something when you give zero evidence to back your claim? Care to cite some research?
Why do you now mention your numbers are based on golden retrievers? That breed has one of the highest cancer incident rates, second only to labs; those figures would be wildly different for most other breeds. Why are you choosing that breed and neglecting to mention it or cite your sources? Sounds like cherry picking to me.
But, I'm willing to play this game. Here is a paper on Golden Retrievers from PLoS in 2013 which does not agree with your (oddly, very round and even) numbers. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937
I do not dispute that spaying/neutering is correlated with increases in some types of cancers (and correlates with decreases in others, which you fail to mention). My dispute is that you are apparently pulling numbers out of your ass without sources in order to use it for scare tactics.
I said "google the negative effects of spay and neuter if you don't believe me" in my original comment. Do that and you can find scientific studies that shows that spay and neuter is detrimental to dogs heath (with very few obvious exceptions, like a dog being neutered to remove the presence of a malignant testicular cancer)
She is thinking to neuter his dog just to appease his husband, not because he has an actual medical problem that requires emergency neutering, so that dog future will only have NEGATIVE consequences if he gets neutered.
Because you said that my claim where false. As i said, hemangiosarcoma risk gets quadruple with being neutered. So, that is a death sentence to a goldern retriver because their risk goes from 25% to 100%. Doesn't this prove that neutering is bad? This is just one example for why it is bad. I can give you 1000 of examples more for why is bad.
Missing the point, what ever the breed, the risk for several cancers gets increased by being castrated. Doesn't matter the breed, it is bad for them. Just because one breed risk will be not as high, doesn't make it good because it is still increasing the risk of deadly/detrimental diseases by neutering the dog.
I could have chosen any other breed. But since I was using blood cancer risk being quadrupled, I look for a breed that has a 25% chance of blood cancer. That is why i chose that breed.
Ever hear of google? If you try google search and fail to find citations, then yea, feel free to ask me for citations by mentioning that you could not find any proof that corroborated my claims. Else, I don't have the time to give 100 citations for every claim that I make per comment.
Is not cherry picking, any breed would have the risk of cancers increased. Like I said, I chose retrievers because 25% X4 = 100% and that proves how detrimental it is to neuter male dogs. Be retrievers or other breed who risk after neutering increases by X4 (even if that risk doesn't get to 100% it is till bad that the risk is increased)
Splitting hairs. You already acknowledge that retrievers have a problem with being prone to cancer. Is a fact that neutering increase risk of some cancers and only removes the risk of ONE cancer that already has good prognosis and kills very few male dogs. So, there is no benefit in neutering male dogs to prevent testicular cancer as you end up killing more dogs by doing that. My point was factual (even if my statistical numbers where off a bit)
You said: "Your position and claim is so easily demonstrated to be wrong" so you are now contradicting yourself. Youa re now saying that my claim si TRUE.
Not on topic. Even if it decreases other cancers, it increases more risk than what it decreases, so there is not a positive gain. And that is only on cancers. it also causes behavioral problems and other sicknesses to happen more. Which again, makes the procedure not have a positive gain for the dog (excluding very few obvious examples, like neutering to remove malignant testicular cancer, by all means, if your dog is diagnosed with malignant testicular cancer, chop them off)
I have done my research and I know the numbers from memory. I'm not pulling anything from my ass. Even if my memory fails me, I would still give a number that is very close to the actual number. And even then, my point that neutering is unhealthy for the dog is factual. So your claim that I'm talking bullshit is not factual.
I did and maintain so. You claim that there are only negative effects, which is laughably and demonstratably untrue.
I have done that, plus I have read many of these papers previously. I want yo to link to them because I have not read anything that supports either the numbers you claim or the results you claim. I still maintain you're pulling shit out of your ass.
OK, here it is. Let me spell it out very clearly for you. Cite your source for the rate of testicular cancer, which you claim is 10%. Cite your source for the rate of it being terminal, which you claim as 10%. Cite your source for there being no positive effects of spay/neuter.
Cite your source for only ONE type of cancer being reduced. Bonus points if you can do this and not prove that you are making up numbers.
Cite your source for this. Show that there are only negative effects
I want to see that 10%, plus the other 10%. You can't do it because you are making shit up.
You are demonstrating that you apparently have no ability to understand what I have written. Bonus points, look for the bits where you contradict yourself and where you're backpedaling. Those goalposts won't move on their own!
Edit: removed ad-hominem
Sorry, but you have not proven that my claim was wrong. Her neutering his dog only to appease his husband is only going to have negative effects on his dog.
Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that neutering only have negative effects. You are attacking a claim that I never made.
Like I said, I gave numbers from memory, they may be off by a couple of numbers. I may have said 10 when it actually was 8 or 12 percent. You want perfect, I don't care about it, my point still stand true even if I don't give the exact numbers.
Like I said, you can google studies about the negative effects of spay/neutering, they are not that difficult to find. You are capable of doing this or you have already done this and you know that my claim that it is detrimental to dogs health is true. So, you asking for evidence is either to waste my time or some other reason than actual interest on the topic.
So, feel free to think that my facts are bullshit. I don't care, just like I don't care that people deny evolution and other things that are factual. I can't do nothing to make a fact denier to change their mind if he doesn't want to acknowledge facts.
GOOGLE IT. Like I said, I give numbers out of memory, they may be off by a small amount. Even if they are not exact number the point I make is still valid.
Straw man fallacy I have never done that claim.
Again, straw man fallacy. I said it removes the risk of one cancer (which is testicular cancer) as if the dog has no testicles, he can't get testicular cancer. OBVIOUSLY.
Do you really want evidence for this? Do you want evidence that fire burns and that ice is cold? At this point, it is clear that you are just trying to waste my time by asking for evidence if things that are obvious or that you know to be true. If not, then why you keep making straw man fallacies?
Or is that you don't know how to read? Do you have a handicap or something?
GOOGLE IT.
Straw man fallacy.
You can see it as soon as you type the magic word on the google search bar.
I won't give you any links because you show to not be interested in the actual evidence but just interested in wasting my time by making me search and give evidence that you already know that exist or agree with.
Seriously, asking me for evidence that neutered dogs can't get testicular cancer... feel free to think that my factual claims are bullshit, I don't care. Facts don't change just because you deny them.
I disagree.
Where I have contradicted myself?
https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/5mogqi/came_out_to_my_boyfriend/dc6d13b/
And for the record, it is not my requirement to disprove every moronic thing some retard posts on the internet. If you want to be taken seriously, you provide evidence when people request it.....unless of course you don't have any. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Here's an assertion, Aluzky is dishonest and twists statements and cherry picks facts to support his claims and when challenged on them or provided evidence to the contrary, he attempts to weasel out of it. Disprove it!
Your quote, from earlier....
Here's the link for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/5mogqi/came_out_to_my_boyfriend/dcegbr6/
No shit, that's what I have been saying and demonstrating, such as when I linked to a paper which disagreed with your claims. Thanks for finally catching up to the rest of us.
I'm done with you, you have zero integrity and are perhaps the most dishonest person I've encountered in a long tme.
With almost every fucking post you moron, but you are apparently too stupid to see it.
Edit: typo
Hi! Here's a summary of the term ^"Strawman":
^A ^straw ^man ^is ^logical ^fallacy ^that ^occurs ^when ^a ^debater ^intentionally ^misrepresents ^their ^opponent's ^argument ^as ^a ^weaker ^version ^and ^rebuts ^that ^weak ^^& ^fake ^version ^rather ^than ^their ^opponent's ^genuine ^argument. ^Intentional ^strawmanning ^usually ^has ^the ^goal ^of ^^[1] ^avoiding ^real ^debate ^against ^their ^opponent's ^real ^argument, ^because ^the ^misrepresenter ^risks ^losing ^in ^a ^fair ^debate, ^or ^^[2] ^making ^the ^opponent's ^position ^appear ^ridiculous ^and ^thus ^win ^over ^bystanders.
^Unintentional ^misrepresentations ^are ^also ^possible, ^but ^in ^this ^case, ^the ^misrepresenter ^would ^only ^be ^guilty ^of ^simple ^ignorance. ^While ^their ^argument ^would ^still ^be ^fallacious, ^they ^can ^be ^at ^least ^excused ^of ^malice.
Your point?
I agree.
I agree. With one expedition. When some one ask for evidence just to waste some other person time. Something that is clear that you are doing here.
I agree. But like I said, I already gave evidence when i said "google the negative effects of neutering/spay if you don't believe me"
If you do that, you will find all the evidence that my claims where true.
"Here's an assertion, Aluzky is dishonest and twists statements
"and cherry picks facts to support his claims"←Last time I check, that is called SUPPORTING A CLAIM WITH FACTS. I'm cheering picking factual information to support claims. How is that wrong?
If I cherry pick newtons theory of gravity, to prove gravity exist or what ever, is that wrong?
"and when challenged on them or provided evidence to the contrary, he attempts to weasel out of it. Disprove it!"←I acknowledge to do that in here and only to you, but only because you are being disingenuous about the evidence that you are asking for. You acknowledge that you know that some of my claims are factual, yet you asked for evidence. You asked for evidence of things that are obvious (that a dog with no testicles can't get testicular cancer) and you asked for proof that castration has negative side effects when I already said: "google the negative effect of castration if you don't believe me that there are negative effects"
So, forgive me that I don't want to waste my time looking for evidence for someone who doesn't actually care about the evidence and is just trying to make me waste time.
Straw man fallacy. I never claimed that neutering only have negative effects. You are attacking a claim that I never made.
You are taking that quote out of context. That quote was said to her, she wants to neutering her healthy dog with healthy testicles. Removing a dog healthy testicles for non-medical reasons is not going to have any benefits on the dog. His dog will only have negative side effect.
like I said, you are attacking a straw man.
The paper disagree with my claims? Where exactly does the paper disagree? Quote the claim I made and then quote the text in the paper that disagrees with my claim.
Projection. Like I said, I have no problems with showing evidence to people who actually care about it. You are just asking me to show evidence because you want to waste my time (else you would have not asked for evidence that you already know to be true, or ask for evidence that is obviously true, or evidence that is super easy to find with a google search)
Don't know about you, but I only ask for evidence when I know the other person claim is 100% false. Or when I did a google search and could find nothing that supports that other person claim. I don't go around asking for evidence that a headless person can't get head cancer. Or asking for evidence that fire burns, as demanding for such evidence is just me being disingenuous and just trying to waste that other person time.
I'm asking for citations. Where I have contradicted myself? PS: Unlike you, I'm not being disingenuous about my request for evidence.
By the way, recurring to insults huh? I guess you ran out of straw man arguments.
It has been pointed out to me that some people are having a hard time following this, so I'm going to reitterate my objection and why I maintain that objection.
My first comment toward Aluzky:
Aluzky said:
I replied with:
I add bold here and there to make it clear, just in case anyone following along has trouble with reading comprehension. I had presumed Aluzky was exagerating, I did not expect he would both assert it repeatedly and assert he never made it.
Aluzky later keep asserting that he never made this claim, but he makes this claim over and over and over
Once I could attribute to an error, but to have made the same statement, several times, is hardly a simple oversight.
Another of his claims for which I requested a reference was this:
It was due to this and several other assertions of facts that I began calling for references for these numbers because it seems these were being made up on the spot. I still maintain this and all requests for any references have been ignored.
A bit later, he posted this little gem:
Which is almost certainly based on my tongue-in-cheek comment about testicular and prostate cancer. Admittedly, when I made that comment I was too lazy to find a reference and cite reductions in other specific cancers which correlate with spay/neuter which he has repeatedly, emphatically, asserted do not happen. This is something which nearly every paper I have read on the topic assert, and which I even cited here
This also seems to be where Aluzky gets the weird idea that I am supporting his assertion when I state the following:
Here I am, again, addressing his repeated assertion that "it is a scientific fact that neutering your dog will only have negative side effect for him, some of those side effect are DEATH" link
To be clear, I've read many papers on this topic and I'm aware there's a correlation between spay an neuter (especially early) and increases and decreases of some cancers. The important part, and I'll bold it to help make it clear, is that there are also correlations with decreases in other types of cancer.
So it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone, especially not to the person who made all those comments that I was surprised when Aluzky left this absolutely astounding inability to remember what he had just posted.
Other comments such as the following make it quite clear he is willing to say almost anything to try to support his position.
Now we've addressed this particular comment before, but for the sake of those who might have trouble remembering what was just said a few lines up....
Aluzky said:
I replied:
This is why I linked to the paper I did. I figured he and perhaps some other people might not be willing to take my word for it so I provided a reference. Anyone who read it you would see that spay/neuter is...wait for it...correlated with increases in some cancers and decreases in others. As a bonus, it's not testicular cancer!
Now, let's address the issue of cherry picking. Several times throughout Aluzky sates that he most certainly is not cherry picking, then later makes this statement:
Let us begin with an explaination of what cherry picking is:
Cherry picking is when someone selects only evidence which supports a particular position while ignoring a larger set of data which does not support the position. It is a type of confirmation bias and is a logical fallacy.
It is wrong because he is ignoring evidence which contradicts his claims. It is dishonest because he won't cite his sources, which I suspect is because he knows full well that the claims are not supported.
Now just in case someone wants to suggest that maybe this one was was a fluke and that he otherwise understands what he's doing, let me present another example where Aluzky makes it plain that he is deliberately, cherry picking in this comment:
To be fair, I did get frustrated and insulting toward him. I do not intend to do so again because even the evidence suggests that he has great difficulty remembering what he has and has not said it isn't fair for me to be abusive toward him.
Here's a fun way to pass some time, read my post history and ask yourself "is this the kind of person who asks for citations with no intention of examining them?"
Pretty sure I already replied to all that... but here I go again.
When I said: "The dog will get no benefit from it, will only get negative effects on his health and quality of life."
I was talking about dogs who gets neutered for non-medical reasons. I proceeded to list several negative side effects that male dogs suffer from being neutered to support my claim.
I didn't made them up on the spot, I did research in the past on the odds of a dog having testicular cancer and the odds of the dog dying from that testicular cancer. You can also do that research by using something called GOOGLE. Obviously, I'm recalling the number from memory, the numbers are not 100% accurate (I said this at the time) I may be a few points off from the actual numbers.
At the time I was busy and could not provide link as I failed to find them. (peopel asking me to find a link among thousands) Now I have time, here is the link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19652479
35 dogs where found to have testicular cancer (dogs with normal testicles, not dogs with undesended testicles, my comment was about dogs with normal decended testicles) 35 dogs out of 476 dogs. Forgive my math, but I think that is about 7.35% of dogs had testicular cancer. 7.35% is not that off from the number that I gave (10%)
Again, if you do a google research about the prognosis for testicular cancer in descended testicles, the prognosis is VERY GOOD. Again, the survival rate for decended testicles with cancer was about 10% (if I recall well from memory) or you are going to ask me again to fetch links for you?
Fact: Removing the testicles only removes the risk of ONE cancer, and that would be testicular cancer, because LOGIC, if you don't have testicles, then you can't have testicular cancer, same way you can't have head cancer if you remove the head. My claim is 100% accurate. So, what is the problem with my accurate claim?
It is a strawman, I said remove the risk of one cancer (which is testicular cancer) and then you said: Show me one study that says REDUCE ONE CANCER. (keywords is reduce) You chanced what I said and attacked a straw man. I never said reduce, I said remove, I was talking about TESTICULAR CANCER. And you try to make it as if I was talking about other cancers which I was not talking about them. Like I said, it is a fact that removing the testicles removes the chance of the dog getting testicular cancer, that is LOGIC 101.
Where I have said that removing the testicles doesn't reduce the risk of some cancers? I don't remember saying that, I don't deny that there may be a tiny chance that neutering may reduce the risk of some cancer, but without studies to support that,I can't be sure. Also, I was talking about neutering, not about SPAYING. I know well spaying reduce the risk of mammary cancers.
Is a FACT that neutering a dog for non-medical reason will only have negative side effects. The risk of phobias increases, risk of developing allergies increases, risk of several cancers increasing, risk of malformations in ligaments or bones increases, risk of obesity and all the side effects of obesity increases. How is that not a fact?
Show me a single study where non-medical removal of testicles doesn't lead to bad side effects? Or you are going to split hairs on the possible existence of one lucky male dog that avoided all the bullets and didn't got a single bad side effect from being neutered for non-medical reasons?
How is that part important? That had nothing to do with my comment. I was talking about male dogs who are neutered for non-medical reasons. You have yet to show evidence that neutering a male dog for non-medical reasons helps to prevent some cancers. Even if that there true, I'm sure that the cancers that gets increased by being neutered totally outweigh the benefits of reducing other cancers. (more negative effects than positive)
Sorry, but I read the comments only. If you fail to give context (like I do) then i may not remember what I said before. I don't have perfect memory, surprised by that? You shouldn't be. Almost nobody has perfect memory.
False. I said that neutering only has negative effects when done in healthy dogs. You are trying to pain me as saying: Neutering has negative effects, even if done in dog a with testicular cancer.
You are taking my comments out of context. I have always acknowledged that neutering has benefits when done in dogs that have cancer in the testicles.
Again, straw man fallacy, you are tying to disprove a claim that I NEVER MADE.
Yes I cherry picked fact. Last time I check that is how you defend a claim in a rational way. If I cherry picked non-facts to defend my claims that would be aberrational/fallacious. The way I'm using cherry picking in that sentence is different from the way you use it. (I think that is obvius)
Where I have ignored evidence that contradicts my claims? I dare you to point a single example.
Is not dishonest, I was busy at the time and could not find the source. You have GOOGLE for fuck sake, you can do your own research. You just want me to waste my time doing research for you. And no, all my claims have evidence behind it.
How is that cherry picking? Even if I chose any other breed, the chance of blood cancer being quadruple is true. The point I wanted to send is how bad neutering can be to male dogs, specially for some breeds like golden retrievers. Me using retrievers as example doesn't prove that my claim is non-factual. So, how is that cherry picking?
Can I hear an apology from you? Not that I care about it.
I don't need to. You asked me for evidence that removing testicles removes only the risk of one cancer. That is you asking for disingenuous evidence. As i have said before, is COMMON SENSE that if a dog has no testicles, he can't get testicular cancer. Why would any sane person as for proof of that? Do you also want proof that fire burns? Or that ice is cold?
Seriously, how hard to understand is that if you remove an area, then that dog can't get cancer in that area. No testicles = no testicular cancer. Removing the testicles only removes ONE kind of cancer from happening. And that is testicular cancer, all the other cancer that are not in the testicles, they can still happen.
After 5 months to mull over my comment, you have still failed in even the most basic comprehension.
OK, perhaps you aren't dishonest, maybe you really don't understand. I can't help that. If you want to understand, I suggest you re-read this comment carefully, take notes if you must, and go through it point by point. You will see that every comment you made was addressed and perhaps most entertainingly, you appear to be only adding to the evidence that you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend what you yourself have said, much less anyone else.
I don't know if you'll laugh at your foolishness when (if) you see it, but I know I have and I really hope some others have as well!
If you don't care, why would you even ask?
Even if you don't care, I do. I'll quote it here because after 5 months I don't think most people would remember it.
I had rudely replied
For losing my cool and calling you a stupid fucking moron, I apologize; there's no need for such insulting language. The spirit of the comment remains, but I think I could have said it much more politely.
I really am done with you now and will not bother responding in this thread any further. I hope you the best in your ventures and I really hope you get that whole logic and reason thing sorted out, I think it will be of benefit to you!
I already read it very carefully and addressed it.
Can't you see that the things I said where factual and backed up by evidence? You used straw man fallacies and attacked arguments that I never made. (like changing the word "remove" to "reduce", which totally changes my sentence) and you asked for evidence that a dog without testicles can't get testicular cancer (which is you asking for evidence just for the sake of making me waste time, wich is why i ignored your other requests of evidence)
Next time, try attacking my arguments (and not straw mans) and try asking from evidence of things that you can't find with google (not asking for evidence of things that are 100% obvius) Maybe then, people will indulge in presenting evidence that you asked for.
While I don't care about it (I'm being honest about it) I think is good for you to apologize and for other to see that you apologized.
Sorry, but if I had seen evidence that I contradicted myself, I would had agree with you and amended the error. Since I never did that, it means you failed to prove it.
Thnaks.
Same here, as I think I was damn clear in pointing out where you made straw man fallacies and other fallacies and where I got my evidence from.
Bye.
This statement is absolutely false. Talking to people like this and spreading lies gets them nowhere. It's the dog on the line, so hold back your anger and silly fallacious statements.
I can't upvote this enough... I'm hardly pro-neutering but wtf man.
I just fixed that comment a bit, I mean that as a hyperbole to show how bad neutering a male dog is. Sorry for not being clear enough, I'm not saying that the dog should be put to sleep, I'm just trying to show/explain how bad it is to neuter the dog, as bad if not worse than putting a dog to sleep for no reason.
I don't agree 100% with that, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I just fixed that comment a bit, I mean that as a hyperbole to show how bad neutering a male dog is. Sorry for not being clear enough, I'm not saying that the dog should be put to sleep, I'm just trying to show/explain how bad it is to neuter the dog, as bad if not worse than putting a dog to sleep for no reason.
PS: What false statement? Neutering dogs is supper detrimental to the dog health, that is a fact supported by several scientific studies. I'm not telling any lies and I can prove it. Also, I'm not angry... did I used angry emoticons in my text? Did I said (I'm angry) in my text? How can you read anger emotions from plain non-emotional text?
It is cheating if he doesn't consent to it (by marring him, you promise to be faithful = one partner only)
I think it would have been better to ask him what he though about open relationships or polyamory before coming out as a zoosexual. But what is done is done.
Maybe you could now try negotiating with him? I mean, let him know that is Ok for him to also dat other people or have sex with other people. AKA, try to have a polyamory/open relationship agreement.
Maybe explain to him that you can love him and also love a dog at the same time? People who don't agree with others having sex with others, usually do so out of jealously or fear to lose that person. If he knows he won't lose you to a dog he may agree with it.
So, I say, do as much research you can do about polyamory and open relationships, that could end up being very helpful to your relationship with him and any dogs.
Ahh monogamy. It sounds like you don't want to give it up, and if I were you, I wouldn't marry him if that was the ultimatum to our relationship. But that's just me and I'm non-monogamous/practice relationship anarchy, so I have my biases. I mean, you kind of have to be non-monogamous if you want to be with both humans and animals and to be honest and open with your human partners at the same time. I'm not saying break up or don't marry him, because that is your personal life and your own personal decision, but if it were me, I wouldn't be able to marry someone who restricted me like that, I wouldn't even think about dating someone who restricted me. It used to be like that when I was younger and dating, but the relationships never lasted very long, I valued my independence more than my obedience to others. Ask yourself, can you really spend the rest of your entire life not being with an animal...all for his sake? Especially when other options exist?
I fear that I may not be able to offer anything that hasn't been said already, but... You've been given a significant amount of advice, good advice. If you don't choose a path soon, you may find a much worse one dragging you along, maybe simply from your willpower being exhausted. Continuing the sexual relationship with your canine partner could bring about social ruin. What if you get married and do get discovered having sexual contact with your nonhuman partner? Do you really want to test how far his fervor will take him, and to whom that fervor will compel him to divulge your secret? Would it be wise to risk family, friends, and the general public hearing about this? While I understand the importance of divulging such information with someone you plan to spend your life with, you must understand that you've also given them a loaded gun that can only be aimed at you.
Marriage and any other legally or spiritually binding partnerships that you enter into are obligations to that other. Part of that is an obligation to honor your partner's wishes as it relates to sexual and romantic partners. You say it would be a great sacrifice, but your human partner has no doubt made similar sacfrifices. I'm certain that other women, or possibly men have caught his fancy, maybe even moreso than you, but he forewent them because he's monoamorous.
I'm not going to say that you should assimilate to his ideals. You seem to be polyamorous in some capacity, which is inalienable, and clearly have differing ideas of what cheating is, which is something that can only be decided on a personal level. You can't assume that you'll be able to change or even influence either of those traits. I'll even concede that technically your observation that the relationship with your nonhuman partner is different is accurate, if only from a limited practical standpoint. Your boyfriend doesn't recognize that technicality though, nor do most of the people here. While you don't need to agree with that, you need to adapt to it, since the definition of cheating that your partner has is the one that should matter the most in deciding your own actions with other partners. If he's not willing to adapt to your other partner, and you're not willing to adapt to his wanting the other relationship to end, I can almost guarantee that you'll have a falling out. You may be able to persuade him as Aluzky said, but be warned that it carries with it the same risks as choosing your nonhuman partner over him.
If you must, find an outlet. If your desire for canines is mostly sexual, perhaps you can slake your lust with the appropriate media or toys. I make it a habit to say this, but abstaining from your sexuality has a way of wearing down your willpower over time, until you are no longer reasonable about it. It may take months, or years for it to reach that point, but it can and does.
I pray that this doesn't come across as arrogant or condescending, but you should have consulted /r/zoophilia, or some other community before acting on this. Failing to heed our advice now, after seeing what action with a lack of proper council ends in will be foolish and ruinous. You're in a very sensitive situation now, and the safest course of action is one that ends in personal sacrifice. Nothing that has been said here was said because we wish to attack you or your ideals, mind you. Many of the people here speak from personal experience, and markedly worse experience, at that. We offer our council so that others may avoid those worse experiences. If you find yourself in an impasse in the future, we're more than eager to help you get through it, but we can't help unless you actually listen to one of us.
What would that have changed? OP is being honest. I think telling your partner up front and dealing with the consequences is FAR more responsible than to lie for the rest of your life and hope you never get caught, which pragmatism aside is morally pretty shaky. I think OP is doing the responsible thing - not necessarily the easy thing. I'm actually a bit surprised everyone is so negative about it.
Honesty is good, I agree, but it's a risky undertaking depending on how the people around them feel about it. Had she consulted us earlier, we could have offered advice on easing the transition, so to speak, as a means to circumvent some of the risk involved. Fortunately, she was in more understanding company than the standard fare.
He's not asking you to get rid of your dog. He's asking you not to have sex with your dog. It's a very reasonable thing to ask.
Many people wish they could continue having sex with other humans after they're married or in a reltionship, but they too have to "give up that part of themselves." Your relationship, in your boyfriend's eyes, is monogamous, meaning you two will only be sexually devoted to each other. It means you'll have no competing or alternative sexual partners. And your dog would certainly be considered alternative or competing.
You need to decide whether you can make a compromise and honor his wishes, or if he and you should break up in order to avoid infidelity, lying, and your possible exposure if he were to find out you were having sex with your dog and air your "dirty laundry."
I wish you the best of luck.
Well this thread was clearly a mistake . It's amazing how judgemental a whole group of misfits can be. A thread from someone calling you sick fucks gets handled and explained nicer than I've been treated . Especially whoever suggested putting a dog down over neutering or re-homing . That's extreme . I'm a groomer at a vets office and have been for almost 10 years -- dogs are FINE after either option . Really. Thankfully I have real friends in real life that I can talk to this week -- it's not as hard to find zoo friendly friends in real life as you make it out to be . Anyway -- was just hoping someone out there might have also been in my shoes of being pulled between dog love and human love but I guess not . You're all holy because you're loyal to your beasts and I'm fucking terrible because I dare think to cheat . Follow up -- after work today boyfriend and I talked again and he said nothing needs to change, he just doesn't want to hear about it. We have been happy for 2 years so why mess that up ? See ya later Reddit -- my first post was my last . Have a good night and pat yourself on the back for being assholes . You accomplished ..... nothing . 👏🏻👏🏻
I haven't seen this barring 1 or 2 posts in this thread and 30-30, personally. Saying "Yeah, that's kinda cheating" isn't being judgemental. Everything that's been said here was said in your best interest at heart. 30-30 can get very heated at times, and this was unfortunately one of the times where he stepped a bit out of line, in my opinion.
You forget that this is regional. Depending on where you live, your friends may not care at all, or might pull out their pitchforks over this. This is also information that you didn't give us, so we had to err on the side of caution. I'm not a zoo, but many of my own friends are not averse to zoophiles either. It doesn't change the fact that those people are a statistical minority, though.
He wasn't suggesting it. He was saying it was equally ethical.
The risk of angiosarcomas is quadrupled in late neutered male dogs, with the risk of various other cancers(Particularly osteosarcomas) increasing as well. Additionally, the risk of obesity, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, and diabetes increases by a wide margin. Spayed/neutered animals also have a generally shorter lifespan. And those are only the observable effects. You're looking at a possibly nuked metabolism and accelerated aging, essentially... which might not even rid them of their libido at that point.
Lots of people here have been.
It's because you didn't seem to recognize it as cheating at first. That, and lots of the people here are more sexually conservative than you may think
Accomplished nothing, how? The end goal has always been to find the happiest ending possible, and that has been found in some capacity. Our advice is often rooted in the worst case scenarios and the places that most revile zoophilia, but when that advice turns out to be overly cautious, that's honestly a good thing. It's reassurance that there are other places in the real world that are reasonable about this. I'd be careful still, though. If he said he doesn't want to hear about it, that means it's probably best to redouble your efforts at making sure he never has to witness the affair either -- a natural conclusion, admittedly, but worth highlighting regardless.
Oh so we're the baddies.
We're the opposites, yeees.
You can't really blame us for getting mad at you.
Seriously? Your dog needs to pay the price for your mistakes?
I agree with you there.
But you've got one thing that you must realize.
That person is not good in his head, he does NOT represent our tiny community.
He's the examle of what we aren't.
I would never touch anyone's dogs in a sexual manner, yet he would.
He's right about the negatives of spaying and neutering, though.
Do you know what effect it has on a dog to do any of these things?
Re-homing a dog that has been with you for 1-2+ years can have serious effects on your dog.
They will miss you, but you've left them to rot, yet, animals will always be loyal to us.
This is your fault for not planning properly.
Animals should NOT be hurt because of a human's mistakes!
Also, he pretty much covered it on the spaying/neutering argument.
Tell me, can an animal consent to being spayed/neutered?
How would you act if you'd wakeup dizzy like that, missing a part of your life like that, forced to change your behavior?
Might've been a better option in the first place if you couldn't handle communicating with an online community.
Oh really?
Have you ever even tried?
I've found only ONE PERSON in real life who isn't against such things.
Of course it had to be a person who doesn't give a shit about anything.
Wake up and realize Zoophilia isn't accepted anywhere.
Good luck finding 'zoo friendly friends' anywhere.
But hey, also good luck not getting insulted at or arrested either.
And oh boy, say g'bye to your job of being a groomer too!
What kind of attitude is that?
We're hated by most people because 'they truly don't love animals at all' and now it's because we love them too much?
And people still wonder why I'm a misanthrope.
And yes, it's not right to cheat.
It shows signs of uncontrollability and lust.
Hard to believe.
Suddenly his behavior changed since then.
How strange, no?
Yeah, looks like you suddenly didn't need our help at all huh?
Sure. Enjoy your life, lady.
Let's just hope your life won't bother any dogs, animals, or even humans, or anything at all.
I did not suggested that the dog should be put down.
You have not present any evidence that I'm not "good in my head"
I'm not the only zoo who has sex without the owner permission, several zoos are doing the same or have done that in the past. You can't paint zoosexuals as "we never have sex with animal without owner permission" because that is a lie. According to scientific studies, a good chunk of zoosexuals first sexual experiences were with the family dog, without the owner permission. So, a good chunk of the zoosexual community is guilty of that "crime" whether you like it or not.
Zoosexuality is no different from heterosexuality (with humans) no sexual orientation is made with PERFECT humans who never do questionable things.
From my, albeit casual, observations, you display signs of mild antisocial personality disorder through your moral deviance, impulsive behavior, aggression, and subtle lack of remorse; favoring obscure justification and deflection. While it's nowhere near the severity of what would be recognized as sociopathy, it's there, from what you've shown us. I say that as a well meaning and caring observer, not an antagonist, mind you. Note that antisocial personality disorder has a large variety of traits, and you need not display all the symptoms to be diagnosed with ASPD.
When I was in middle school, I stole from my brother. Cleaned out all the cash in his room. I was forgiven and went on to never steal again. Not even out of guilt or due to any consequences(he called me out and I returned the dosh, that was the end of it), but because I was reminded that it was a breach of trust. The 'first encounter' for zoos is usually in the early to mid teens iirc, so such a trespass is beyond the scope of persistent scrutiny and forgivable. You're dealing with a huge influx of sex hormones then, and the the area of the brain responsible for consequences and reasoning is still developing. Teenagers are much more emotional creatures, as it were, and the same restraint you can expect in an adult can't be reasonably expected in a teenager; especially when they're potentially exhausting their willpower trying to resist their then alien attractions, with no real understanding of how to control those urges. It's part of why legal penalties for minors are significantly reduced.
You're an adult, though(presumably), can practice restraint, and should be able to contend with your own urges much better. You're not the same person that you were when you were 16. It's not the fact that you did it that he takes issue with... it's that you kept doing it. Your approach, insofar that I've seen it, is very unrestrained, and even if it's not unethical between you and the nonhumans in question, it's a violation of implied expectations. Agreements are preempted with moral expectations. Though they do not say it outright, there is an expectation that you won't copulate with their dog when you're dogsitting, the same way you're expected not to do the same with their daughter when 'babysitting' for them. They assume, at the time of the agreement, that it need not be elaborated.
Also, the relationship between you and the family dog, and you and the neighbor's dog are two very different things. The family dog has a strong relationship with you already, and even I had a significant stake in the well being of my household's pets during my teenage years. They're part of my family, and I call them our dog, not mom and dad's dog, and exploring ones' sexuality with them is somewhat understandable. Exploring it with the neighbor's dog that you've spent all of three hours with is not, for the vast majority of people; zoo or otherwise... so your claim here is rather peripheral.
Sexuality in general is a tainted seed, certainly, but that's not an excuse to embrace said taint. If you're aware that something you feel the urge to do is reprehensible or otherwise indefensible, that's when you should consider finding an outlet to help contend with said urges... not falling deeper into them.
''You may as well take your dog to a vet and put him to sleep, that would be more ethical for him in the long run than cutting off his balls.''
This is implying that they're both just as bad.
https://www.reddit.com/user/Aluzky
Give it a read, and don't scroll too far, because that'll only make it more obvious.
So what are you trying to say with this?
Several zoos also rape animals.
Yeah, but I don't belong in the same category as you.
Fencehopping is a disgusting act, which the most of us don't do.
I can repeat the same shit over again: ''Several zoos also rape animals.''
It doesn't make it anymore right and it doesn't put me in the same boat as them.
By the way it shows signs of uncontrollability, which hurts zoophilia's image a lot.
People shouldn't be afraid that zoophiles would touch their animals without knowing.
In fact, if I knew somebody had sex with my bitch he probably wouldn't have a dick anymore if I knew him.
And how old were these zoos back then?
The word 'family dog' hints at it. So that would be mostly 11-14ish, no?
At that point of time, you aren't really aware of your actions.
But the thing is, not every zoo did this, a big example is me.
I'm so happy I just didn't take it any further than staring at their dicks.
Also, you realize that a 'family dog' belongs to everyone in the family?
There is no true owner as everyone is considered the owner as you fucking live with it. Do you live with the other dogs you've fucked behind people's backs?
I still don't get what you're trying to say.
Zoos also are guilty of killing and raping animals whether we like it or not.
Indeed, but we often have the power to change these things.
And if you happen to be a part of a human who does these 'questionable things' then you clearly need to fix yourself.
Yes, both are bad, but again, me saying that both are bad is not the same as me suggesting that she should murder the dog. You are doing a non-sequitur fallacy (your evidence does not support your conclusion) and a ignorant elenchi fallacy (presenting factual evidence of something that is not relevant to the accusation)
You are a zoosexual or not? So I'm.
I agree. Which is why I don't support or do that act.
Again, they are zoosexuals just like you, that is my point. And you are in the same both as them of being a zoosexual.
I'm in control of my actions. Zoosexual image should not be hurt, just like heterosexuals image is not hurt by people who cheats on their wife. If some one thinks badly about all zoosexuals, is because that person has irrational bigoted beliefs about zoosexuals.
Since some zoos will do that, they have a valid reasons to be afraid/worried of that. Nothing wrong with that as long as they don't become bigoted because of it.
How are you any different from a boyfriend who assaults another guy for having consensual sex with his girlfriend? You sound like a violent jealous boyfriend.
Me, I'm in support of polyamorous relationships or open relationships. If my dogs want to have sex with other humans, it is none of my business.
From 8 to 18.
Not necessarily. Not everybody gets to own their own dogs. I didn't own my own dog till I was 24 or 23.
Valid argument for the ones under 14, not as valid for the ones that are over 14.
I know that. But you are too judgemental over this topic. And is not like your grievances is about them harming the dog or the humans. Your problem is that they are not acting like you, which is a silly thing to be judgemental about.
NOPE. The dog is legally owned by the person who buy it or adopted it. Even if it is the family dog, it is still the property of a single person (usually one of the parents or another adult)
A couple of them, yes.
You want to paint zoos as people who never do that, if that is your goal, it is a pointless goal. Because zoos will always do that to some extent. You can't just pain all zoos as being perfect angels just to appease the bigots, by doing that you are only telling a lie.
I see no problem with doing questionable stuff as long as you are not harming others. So, I will disagree with you.
Then tell me what the fuck you meant with that.
And you are nothing but screaming the word fallacy.
You have an obsession with this as I've seen nobody do it before.
Got a heavy and talkative childhood, Aluzky?
I'm not an oversexual person who would have sex with any other dog.
I'd rather respect the owner's wishes like a normal human being.
I also won't cheat on my own bitch, now that's disgusting.
I'm so glad I can control myself!
Now you're acting innocent again.
You know what the fuck we mean by that.
So what?
Doesn't mean I approve all of a zoo's dumbshit actions, like yours.
https://youtu.be/8iTk1ijKhMo?t=52s
We are a minority and are already seen as bad people.
Heterosexuals aren't a minority, exactly the opposite.
Also, people can't really blame the default sexual orientation. Think.
Sure, some of them may be bigoted and their reasons don't make sense as they aren't true, but we've still got to prove ourselves to the public.
Your actions, like fucking dogs behind people's backs is what nobody wants.
Go on.
Make a post, ask this fucking community.
Ask the zoo community what they think of all of this.
Then so be it.
But there's nothing wrong at getting mad for someone cheating on you.
Also, as much as I don't like the wording of it, my bitch is my property.
You can't just do stuff to her.
Would you like it of somebody lend your dog from time to time without you knowing?
If your answer is yes, then you might as well sell your dogs because who cares who they're with am I right?
Good for you.
I'm in support of monogamous relationships.
Oh look, who gives a fucking shit? No one.
Both yours and mine message hold no meaning.
Then they shouldn't fuck with these dogs.
I got my bitch when I was below 16, so what?
It doesn't always have to do something with age.
Your first time is always different and you might not know what the fuck you're doing.
In the case you know what you're doing, then you shouldn't ever touch anyone's dogs again in case you lose your control and fuck them.
Ouch, sounds a lot like you.
You're the one who judging us for not letting our partners have sex with others, which is a normal and common thing everywhere.
And us meaning 100% of the zoophiles who can control themselves, are normal and are mentally healthy.
And no, I don't give a shit if you aren't like me.
I won't judge others for being different, except if that person's actions are harmful, disgusting, rude, etc.
What did you just call that family dog?
See the bold letters.
^^^^Hypocrite.
Anyways, back on-topic.
It usually doesn't matter who's name is on the papers.
If the owner says that the family dogs belongs to everyone in the family, then it is, making fencehopping actions less bad.
Still doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to fuck dogs behind people's backs.
I don't, but we can at least say we disapprove of such actions and show people that we aren't like them, which should be the same about fencehopping.
Good for you.
I edited the comment days ago. My comment was a hyperbole and was not to be taken as an order to kill the dog. Do you seriously think that I would order some one to kill hims dog for non-medical reasons?
I'm not screaming. And there is nothing else I can say if you keep making fallacious arguments. How about you try to have a rational non-fallacious conversation to begging with?
Me and every rational person has an "obsession" with pointing out when some one is making a fallacious arguments.
I don't understand the question.
Your reply was not relevant to the comment that you quoted.
You mean that I trespass in private property to have sex with animals. That is the definition of fence jumping. I have never done that, I'm against that, I won't do that. I'm acting Innocent because I'm innocent of doing or supporting fence jumping.
That was all my point. As you seem to think that some one is not a zoo if they cheat, or rape, or use dogs as sex toys or what ever.
https://youtu.be/8iTk1ijKhMo?t=52s
Seen as bad people BY THE BIGOTS.
Captain obvious.
Nor they can't blame sexual minorities. As doing it would be fallacious and bigoted. Yet, theya re fallacious and bigoted and do it all the time.
Agree. As long as it doesn't involve laying. part of that is acknowledging that people like myself exist. (FYI: I would not exist if bigots didn't existed) like I said, you can't paint zoos as being perfect angels that never do anything bad or questionable.
Not nobody. Some people don't mind it. I understand that some portion of zoos do not like/support that behabior.
I don't need to ask for something that I already know the answer for.
Good that you acknowledge it.
Getting mad, no. ASSAULTING THE OTHER PERSON. Yes, that is pretty bad.
Are you aware that your bitch is a sentient being that can also make choices on her own? You are like a parent who doesn't let her 18 year old daughter have a boyfriend or sex. know that you are treating your dog as an object by forbidding her to make her own choices on who she wants to have sex with.
Lend? We are talking about sex, not about lending. You can't lend some one else property without permission. That is pretty much stealing and a crime.
If some one else and your bitch decide to have CONSENSUAL sex on your home without your knowledge (and that human had permission to be in your property and you never told him to not have sex with your bitch and he is STD free) he is not lending your bitch to anyone. He is not stealing your property. He is not violating your trust as he is not doing something that you order him to not do. And your bitch chose on her own to have sex with him.
I agree, finally you understand.
That is like your OPINION. Man.
Good for you.
I disagree and agree.
I agree.
Yes and no. I won't go around hating you for not being poliamorous or open relationship and I'm not going to go around spreading false rumors to ruin your reputation just because your choice of relationships and actions is the opposite of mine. You have the right to like and only do monogamous relationships, you have the right to treat your bitch like an object who is owned by a jealous boyfriend.
I'm a bit judgemental about that, but I keep that to myself and I don't let that spill into senseless hate like you do.
100% of zoophiles are not in control of themselves, more like ZERO percent of them are normal. And some of them are mentally unhealthy. AGAIN, DON'T TRY TO PAINT ZOOS AS PERFECT. YOU ARE JUST TELLING LIES.
Your actions disagree with that statements. You have been giving me shit just because I'm not monogamous and just because I give my dog the freedom to fuck who ever he wants to fuck.
Disgust and to some extend rudeness are subjective. Judging other over those is.... well, pointless. No different from a zoophobe who judges you for being gross with your bitch and being rude to him by doing something that he finds disgusting.
We are talking about property, property is genderless so "it" is the right word to refer to it. I know dogs are not an it. But property is it and in this case we are talking about dogs as property, so "it" is an acceptable use of the word.
I don't see how I'm being a hypocrite. I'm not doing like you do when you say stuff like "you fucked it" when referring to a dog in a thread that had nothing to do with property.
Seem that I was wrong, in some places minors can own property. But my argument still stand for places where that is not the law.
PS: Where are you from? You got your bitch at 16. If you live in a country where minors can't own property, you may be guilty of the "crime" that you hate so much.
And let me get this straight, if some one tells me that his dog belong to me (not in a legal way but a metaphorical way just like your family dog example) I can fuck the dog even if he has not given me permission to do that? Even if he doesn't like that? You ok with that scenario?
You finding it wrong is a subjective opinion. I acknowledge your opinion but I disagree with it as I don't see it as wrong.
I have no problems if you want to disapprove with such actions as long as you don't make lies about it. You an just tell that some people do stuff like that but that not everybody is like that.
Coming from you? Obviously.
Also, now you can make non-serious comments, yet I can't?
How mature of you, Aluzky!
Oh yes, I'm making fallacious arguments only according to you.
Hoooow straaaaange!
Evidence please.
*Whatta? Me a no speaky americany? 'Allo, I am speak CHAINEZE!**
It was.
You're putting me in the same boat as you.
I'm not a fencehopper, no thanks.
The thought of it, disgusting!
No, I mean that you have sex with animals without their owners knowing.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRHHHHH
Never said that.
These zoos exist and we need to get rid of them.
Not just bigots.
But also other people.
We still have to prove ourselves to people in different ways.
We still have to prove ourselves to people in different ways.
It doesn't matter what they are, we still have to prove ourselves.
And if certain actions most people and even zoos don't approve of, we should stop it, so we CAN prove ourselves.
Ouch, that was really hard to understand, no?
I'd never do that anyways.
If there are bad people in our community, we need to get rid of them.
We need to show that the normal zoophiles who don't do harmful shit, aren't fencehoppers, rapists, etc.
Look, you're lying to yourself and me again.
If some people don't mind it, then sure.
But you don't know if they don't mind it if you don't fucking ask.
And if you can't because it's illegal, then don't.
Nope, you're going to need some evidence.
Now, you're just pretending to know the answer.
You're afraid of the truth, aren't you?
Don't even tell me. Why? I already know the answer.
If you do bad shit, you deserve a kick or two in the balls.
I'd rather crush 'em, though.
Sometimes violence is an answer.
I can't just tell the person like yo dude yer fucking with me bitch, I'm mad but can't do shit.
But hey, you're right.
If I see that shit, I'd probably just spray him to make him unconscious, then call the cops on the horny autist.
Good idea!
Irrelevant, also a bad comparison, she is not my daughter.
She IS my girlfriend and we lead a monogamous relationship.
And you can't do something with my bitch either.
You can't just pet her, as she is my property.
Do I really have to repeat the same shit over again?
She IS my girlfriend and we lead a monogamous relationship.
First, consensual sex won't happen as 1. she is too small for penetrative sex 2. she has little to not sexual urges and I'm doing that for her.
Second, it is common sense that you don't do anything like that.
I've not told him to give her food either,
I've not told him to kiss her either, etc.
Just because I didn't tell you that you shouldn't do these things doesn't mean you should.
Look who's throwing more fuel at the fire just because he doesn't like monogamous relationships.
Aww, now he doesn't look like a happy camper.
I'm not treating her like an object.
Do male humans treat their female human partners as an object like that?
Obviously not.
Wake the fuck up man.
Yeah sure, I totally can't keep myself from fucking that dog that I'm left alone with.
I wouldn't for sure, and you can't tell me otherwise.
We are in control of ourselves. Where's the evidence we aren't?
ARGH, I ARE MAD! ME DESTROY!
I don't, and won't paint zoos are perfect.
But taking out the trash is a good way of giving us a better image.
Sadly, I've only made it worse because it triggered you so much that you just have to reply to my messages.
I'm glad I still exposed you in a way.
I got gold and praise for it, not that I care, but it shows that I'm doing the right thing according to some other zoos.
It's the opposite, especially in this specific comment.
And it's not exactly the fact that you aren't monogamous, but it's that fencehopping is a bad thing.
It's bad because these owners don't know. Animals are property so you'll have to follow the owner's rules.
How would you feel if somebody did stuff to your dog while you're gone?
Don't lie, that's not very pleasant to know.
Just like how you don't want your dog to be colored blue and red, people don't want their dogs to be fucked.
Also, this increases risk of spreading zoonoses.
I agree, but I didn't mean the commonly used definition of disgusting.
Not the ''ew'' shit, but more like when somebody does bad things, it's disgusting to me.
And rude is indeed a bad thing, maybe not too bad, but still.
Nobody likes rude people.
Trust me, I AM one and so is my bitch.
Except you were talking about a dog, not just only property.
I call anything with an unknown gender an it.
Let's get the definition of ''it'' again, shall we?
This specific definition sparks my interest.
(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.
Ouch, that's a DEEP cut you got there.
I got her earlier than that, but it's okay.
Also, she's on my name since I got her, so there's no crime here.
Even if it was, idgaf If she's on my name she's mine.
I mean, if he is telling you that it's also yours, it's his fault if he doesn't like you having sex with that dog.
Basically, I wouldn't care. In this case, it's his fault.
Ah yes, everything I say is always an opinion and you are 100% Mr.Perfecto!
You know what we mean by fencehopping.
Just don't act dumb on purpose, or even on accident.
Hey, /u/peacheslala97
I don't want to bother you, but since we've had some nice discussions, why don't I show you what our friend is up to now?
I wouldn't get bothered by this anymore, it's basically a comical cartoon fight at this point.
A message I received when Mr. Fence Jumper With An Ego said dogs NEVER mount for dominance.
I replied >Dogs never mount to prove dominance?
Aluzky said >Like I said, I have done research or the past 10 years and I have yet to find evidence of dogs using mounting to show dominance behabior.
I replied back >For someone who claims to be an expert on dogs you're completely ignorant on the subject.
Aluzky replied >Citation needed. Where is the proof that I'm ignorant on this subject?
How do I know Moose wasn't trying to fuck me when he mounted me once? His dick was still in his sheath, he didn't continuously hump me, he simply held still then moved when I asked him to move!
At this point I'm not even trying to make fun of him on purpose. But that's... extremely dumb for someone who spends time 'researching' dogs for 10 years.
No, I'm serious. That's nothing more than poppycock.
I don't buy it, that seems unlikely, even for Aluzky.
THIS is the reason he might be a rapist.
If he seriously does not know that male dogs do have such behavior, then I doubt he can know when an animal gives consent to sex or not.
He's literally asking asking for evidence, while he does not give evidence for most of his arguments.
He refuses to ask if the zoo community agrees with him because he ''knows they do.''
If we're gonna need evidence for everything, where's his evidence that he has been researching dogs for 10 years?
Aluzky, if you happen to read this: Having sex with dogs = not research. Stick your dick out of them once and actually research them.
Though I prefer that you never touch one at all.
It would profit both dogs and humans!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^/u/Aluzky
Everyone knows dogs mount for a multitude of reasons. And just because I had sex with a dog and a horse doesn't make me an expert on either species. And what's wrong with monogamy exactly? He's unraveling and it's getting sad.
I agree with you there.
Apparently he sees monogamy as wrong because we keep an animal from from having sex when they want to.
And that we ''see them as objects.''
As you can see, he really doesn't know what monogamy is.
Do we really have to explain that we won't allow these things to happen? IF they were to happen?
And you know what's funny? My girl only shows sexual behaviors to me and no one else.
So I'm not keeping her from doing anything, and even if she wanted to (which is as rare as finding a 200 bill on the street) I could do it for her because I'm her trusted partner.
Sadly, he thinks that animal's lives revolve around sex.
Good job Aluzky, you don't see them as sex objects, but as sex monsters.
Now that I think about it...
What would his reaction be if I told him that I sometimes refuse her 'sex invites'?
I really wonder... ^/u/Aluzky...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^/u/Quixenare
Others may see this as is ganging up on Aluzky but honestly look at how he acts and what he says. He gets mad when people who aren't Zoos and don't have sexual thoughts about animals won't masturbate their dogs, he gets mad at you for not practically loaning out your girl for daily gangbangs, he ranted at me because I don't let Moose mount me every waking hour 24/7, he gets mad at you for giving your girl meat to keep her healthy, he gets mad when people point out what he does is basically fence jumping despite admitting to such here and on and on. He's not healthy in the head and honestly I worry he's going to get his dogs killed if someone leaned about him. I can see something like that happening to him. I hope nothing happens to his dogs they're innocent in all this. But mark my words Aluzky is going to cause something bad to happen to them. Or to himself.
I get mad? I just think that it is irresponsible and a bit cruel. Why have a pet if you are not going to take care of that pet needs? And FYI: I don't need to get mad to think that.
Again, I don't get mad over that. Is your right to be selfish and jealous about your dog and not let him/her have sex with anyone else (even if he/she wants to)
Being your right doesn't mean that I have to like it. Again, I don't get mad about it just because I don't like it.
If I recall, the conversation was about you not letting him mount because you didn't wanted to be seen as a sex crazed pervert. You let him being sexually deprived just because you didn't wanted to be seen as a pervert.
I will say the same thing that me and several others said at that time, stop carring about what other people think about you, do what makes HIM happy and what other people think be damned. And guess what? You not satisfying his sex urges, doesn't make him happy. He would be much more happy if you give him a helping hand.
Again, mad? Do you even know what mad means? it means VERY ANGRY or mentally insane.
I haven't got every angry in years and I can tell you that I'm not mentally ill.
And I don't remember what that conversation was about, was probably about veganism. FACT: Dogs can be healthy on a vegan diet. So, saying that you need to give a dog meat for healthy reasons is not factual.
"he gets mad when people point out what he does is basically fence jumping"←The fact that you have to use "basically" proves that what I do is not fence jumping.
Example: What you do with your dog is basically rape.
I have said it 1000 times, I have never fence jumped nor I want to do that. It is a crime. What I do is very different from fence jumping, I don't trespass property. I have permission to interact with the dogs.
I have never admitted to fence jumping because I have never done that.
That is your subjective opinion, not a fact.
Don't we all worry about it? Bigots are everywhere.
I can see that happening to you too.
Ditto.
So, now you can predict the future?
Because most of us don't wanna fuck our animals that's why. You sound just like SJW who tell people if you don't wanna fuck a morbidly obese woman with health issues you're a bigot.
Disproving this in 3..2..1
You're still a moron.
And no one has to like you yet when the shoe is on the other foot you complain.
So why do you always call it jealousy then? Maybe you're mad because you tried to abuse a bitch and she bit you, but she let a Rottie fuck her? I can see why that would make you jealous.
She also said the dog mounted her to establish dominance as he didn't get hard.
What part of dominace do you not get? I think you've been choking down too much dog cum and it's just fucked up your brain. Maybe try drinking water sometimes?
You don't even know the meaning of no.
Both describe you to a T.
You were angry months ago.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. This is a metaphor since the river is called The Nile.
No two dogs are exactly alike. Btw my wolfdog is still going fine on his diet or raw venison, lamb, goat, chicken and recently he had raw Canadian Goose.
You might not jump a fence but you're still no any better then those that do.
Pot meet kettle.
Do you have permission to use them for sex? Nope.
Oh so you do in fact have permission to use dogs for sex?
Says the guy who thinks being allowed to watch dogs means you're allowed to use them for sex.
If something happens to them their blood is on your hands.
At least she only fucks her dog and doesn't mistake her pussy for a brain. You however think with your dick.
You upload videos of other people's dogs and constantly use dogs that aren't yours. That's like predicting a forest fire in an area where someone constantly throws lit matches on the ground. You're going to get your dogs killed and you only have yourself to blame. Which is a pity because they don't deserve to be punished because their owner is dumber than a pile a cow shit.
And most peoplee don't want to pick their dog soggy warm shit from the side walk, but you have to if you want to call yourself a responsible owner.
Also, you don't need to blow your dog or let him fuck you in the ass to satisfy their sexual needs (if they happen to have them) you could just give them a hand/finger. Or pay some one else to do it (though plenty people would do it for free)
So, sad day if you don't like to take care of your pets needs, if you don't want to, then don't have pets sin the first place.
Well, if the person gives bigoted reason to not fuck her, then yes, the person is a bigot.
Where is the evidence?
Calling some one a moron when he has an IQ of 134 is not rational.
If they don't like me for rational reasons, I don't mind. If they don't like me for irrational reasons I will try to correct them. Complain and correcting is not the same thing.
Context. What I have called jealousy?
That has never happened. And I would not get mad over stuff like that. Is the dog right to chose who he/she wants to fuck with. (as long as the dog heath and benefit is not endangered)
Dogs have a baculum (inside their penis ) so they are always hard. If you mean that the dog was not aroused (knot formed) they can't fuck if they have the knot formed before mounting, so, it would be irrational to demand that the dog must be fully aroused before mounting. Also, I asked her for evidence that dogs mounts out of dominance, which she avoided to give. As I have said in the past, I have been debating for 10+ years. I have asked hundreds of people, including veterinarians, dog trainers and so on, to show me evidence that dogs mount out of dominance and in 10+ years not a single one of them has been able to give any scientific evidence to support that claim. I have also seen days if not months of footage of dogs fucking dogs and dogs fucking humans and never seen a single dog mounting out of "dominance" y have also done research to find this "dog mounts out of dominance" study and have not found any study supporting the claim that dogs can mount out of dominance, because of all these reasons I'm very sure that "mount out of dominance" is not a scientific fact but a myth. In the end her excuse was not a valid excuse. She was just trying to hide the fact that she didn't took care of the dog needs because she didn't wanted to be seen as a freak.
What part of "dominance" not being a real thing you don't understand?
If you can't see how intelligent I'm, maybe you are not intelligent enough to see it.
To a T? What? Are you saying that I'm mentally insane? Do you have evidence to support that? Do you have evidence that I'm very angry when I write comments?
Where is the proof?
Again, where proof that I'm mentally insane?
Your point?
I don't care about it, so why are you telling me this? Are you going to tell me how solid was your shit today too?
Where is the evidence that supports that claim.
What?
I was never warned to not have sex with the dogs, just like I was not warned to not hug the dogs. So, what is your point? That I need to ask permission for every single actions that I intend in doing with the dogs?
Neither I have permission to have sex with them nor to not have sex with them.
Straw man fallacy. I don't think that.
You are blaming the victim. The blood is on the bigots.
And bigots can still kill her and her dog if they find out. But according to you, is her fault and not the bigots faults if they get killed.
false attribution fallacy. I don't mistake my brain with a pussy.
Again, false attribution fallacy. I don't think with my dick, dicks don't have brain neurons. I think with my brain.
Translation: I can't predict the future. I have been doing that for 10+ years. I take enough precaution and are careful enough to not being find out. The odds of that happening is VERY VERY LOW. I would have more luck winning the lottery than being caught.
Also, i no longer make videos not upload them, I stop doing that years ago. So, the odds of me being caught is even lower.
So a cow shit pile has an IQ higher than 134? lol.
When dogs mount for dominance they often will not extend their penis and sometimes will simply hold still while on top or another dog regardless of gender. I'm well aware that dogs' penises are always hard. You claim 10+ years of experience? But your only experience is sexual 99% of the time hence why you can't separate basic non-sexual canine behavior with purely sexual behavior.
Citation needed. I will like to see the scientific study that supports that fact.
PS: That is a very VERY vague definition of how dog dominance mount looks like. Not a scientific definition, seem like something you rephrased in your own simple words. I want to see an objective definition and the evidence that supports such behavior in dogs.
Then why say "he was not hard" ? Poor use of words? If so, just say it.
I'm a dog trainer, dog groomer, dog walker and some what of a vet tech. I have extensive knowledge of non-sexual canine behavior. 99% of the time I'm not having sexual interaction with dogs but non-sexual interaction. So please, stop making false claims of how educated or uneducated I'm.
Google various kennel clubs(try not to wank off to the pictures of the dogs, I know that's difficult for you to avoid), read a book written by a reputable veterinarian. Of course I know this is too taxing for you to do on your own hence why you asked me to do your work for you.
I still support the 2nd Amendment, yes. In case you were wondering.
According to you. Not my fault you can't understand what I said.
According to you? Some loser on the internet who thinks he's an activist simply because he goes after any dog within a mile of him. You can paint a turd gold but it's still a turd.
The man(not that you're worthy of being called a man) who can barely grasp the English language saying my words are simple? That's hilarious.
Because you couldn't find one yourself despite supposedly being so intelligent.
Oh that was deliberate. I dumbed down my comment a bit to match your typical replies. I'm shocked you couldn't tell lol!
My condolences for your clients.
My condolences for more of your clients.
More condolences.
I guess they just give that title away in Costa Rica these days. Further condolences for the patients you encounter.
Sure. And I'm married to the current President of the United States.
Sure you are.
Are they really false though? And if you don't like what I have to say then block me.
Here's a real dog trainer that explains mounting. He didn't have to fuck the dogs to get that result either. Not that I expect you to read this.
https://www.cesarsway.com/dog-psychology/pack-position/dominant-or-submissive-which-is-your-dog
Real dog trainer? Aren't you aware how much that guy is despised by actual dog trainers? FFS
What are you talking about? What you mean by fuck dogs to get results?
Again, there is no links, no citations to actual scientific evidence. You are only giving me some one opinion.
Imagine this, if I give you 10 links to people who have the opinion that earth is flat, does that proves that earth is flat? You giving me links to people with the opinion that dogs can hump out of dominance is not proving that dogs actually can hump out of dominance.
Ok, let me put it easy. If you and so many people claim that dogs can hump out of dominance, then it won't be hard to find a dog doing that on a youtube videos, i mean, you can actually find millions of videos of dogs masturbating themselves, must be a cake to find a single video of a dog humping out of dominance. I dare you, show me a single video of a dog humping out of dominance, be from youtube or any other site. Good luck with the snipe hunt. FYI: I still need a clear definition (supported by scientific evidence) of what a dominance hump is. Else, it is impossible to evaluate if a dog is humping to show dominance.
You mean yourself and people who used abusive tactics? Uh-huh. I'll take his advice before I take the shit you try to pass off as advice.
Let me guess, you're going to ask a stupid question?
I hate being right.
You only say that because the links didn't say "Dogs want fucky fucky long time all the time." I provided real links(even if I provided a Ceasar link) and your only response is "watch videos of dogs fucking on YouTube" essentially. I provided links but you didn't refute my information. Your only response is to watch YouTube videos. Nice.
OPPOSITE. Cesar is know to use abusive tactics like the alpha roll
Read this link: https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html
Specially the part that talks about Caesar.
Read this too: http://www.dogtrainingnation.com/dog-behavior-2/real-reason-dog-trainers-dislike-cesar-millan/
Doing that, only shows how irrational or unintelligent you are.
What? I asked, what are you talking about? Are you going to ans wet?
Again.... WHAT? Your reply has nothing to do with my comment. Are you drugged or drunk while answering to me?
No, I said that because it is the truth. Like I said, feel free to show me actual scientific evidence (not opinion) that dogs can hump to show dominance. Or show me a single video of a dog humping to show dominance.
Again, this "dominance myth" has been debunked by scientists. And this hump to show dominance is part of that myth.
And none of those links shows SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Those links only shows OPINIONS. And opinions are not facts.
If I show you links of people who gives the opinion that earth is flat, does that proves that earth is actually flat? Do you even know what scientific evidence is?
NO, I gave you options, either show me some study that proves that dogs can hump to show dominance, or show me a single video of a dog humping to show dominance, either one will prove your point as being true. And you failed at presenting evidence any of those. I knew you would fail, same way that people who claim that earth is flat fails when asked to support their claims with facts.
There is no evidence in the present that earth is flat or that dogs hump to show dominance, that is the state of things. If you claim that dogs hump to show dominance (and you did) the prove it VALID evidence.
I did refute it, I told you that those links didn't have any valid citations, they only had opinions. Opinions is not valid scientific evidence. That is my refutal and is a valid refutal.
Lies. I gave you options for how you can prove that your claim is true. Is up to you which options to chose.
Already did. You're currently whining about it.
I didn't see it. Where did you post it? And if it is in an older comment, then I will eventually get to read it, as I read comments in this order, newest take priority.
You are misusing the definition of the word whining. I never whine in here. I'm not a baby anymore.
http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/humping-why-do-dogs-do-it
I have been over this, I need scientific evidence, not opinions.
Nowhere in that site they have citations to scientific studies showings that dominance humping is an actual thing.
Not actually an opinion. I mean seriously reputable sources and you ignore and deny. Wow. Fucking wow!
The sources you gave didn't have any valid scientific citations to studies or video evidence. All they have was: This person says dogs can hump to show dominance. ←This is called an OPINION and it is not valid evidence to defend your claim.
A link that states the opinion of some one is not a reputable source. You need actual citations. Or visual untampered evidence.
I ignored nothing nor deny nothing. You want your claim to be taken seriously, then present actual valid evidence.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201107/why-does-my-neutered-dog-mount-other-dogs%3Famp
Again, your link is only one person giving his OPINION that dogs can hump to show dominance, I need actual scientific evidence. A study showing evidence that dogs hump to show dominance a clear definition of what a "dominance hump" is.
I need scientific evidence, not opinions.
I provided evidence not opinions. Reputable evidence. Yet here you are denying it because it doesn't agree with you. This is just pure gold you guys. /u/LipstickPaper did I forget to tell you how stupid he was? I should've said something earlier but I must've skipped my mind at the moment. But here it is: Aluzky Logic(sarcastically called logic).
The link you provided have people stating: Dogs hump to show dominance. nowhere in those link you could find citations to support those opinions.
So yes, you provided opinions, and opinion are not valid evidence. As a thesis teacher.
Your "evidence" had ZERO citations. Your "evidence" was not reputable evidence.
I will agree with facts, if you have facts that dogs can hump to show dominance, I will agree with those facts.
Me stupid? Do you have evidence to support that accusation?
http://www.akc.org/content/entertainment/articles/why-puppies-and-femal-dogs-hump-or-mount/
The AKC says this can indeed be sexual yet it's easy to tell between the two.
And that is the AKC opinion, not supported with actual scientific evidence that dogs can hump to show dominance. Nor with a clear definition of what a dominance hump is.
I require facts, I don't need unsupported opinions
That was scientific evidence. OMG you really are an idiot aren't you? And people actually take your so called "expertise" as fact? Well birds of a feather flock together. I guess if you told your followers that eating parasite infested feces was healthy and you used some faux article to back this up you would believe it and so would your fan club 😂
Invalid evidence is not scientific evidence. Opinions are not scientific evidence. Specially if they are not backed up by any citations.
Only in your imagination.
What expertise?
I believe in facts. Your links are no different from faux articles, they had zero citations.
The fact that you are having so much problems to prove something so simple, shows that your claim is not supported by any actual SCIENTIFIC evidence.
Picking up dog shit is not the same as fucking a dog dumbass.
Oh so you want people to pimp out their dogs is that it?
Yeah it's so sad that people don't want to have sex with their animals(fingering, jerking or oral is still sex) because they're not attracted to them or have a fetish for them. Yeah that's absolutely tragic.
Oh great. Now you're going to tell me to fuck 700 pound women or else. Well if that makes me a bigot then so be it.
Going by your mentality and inability to grasp the world around you, you don't have an IQ of 134. 90 seems about right though. May 100. I'd say -10 but that doesn't exist but maybe you're the first. Also anyone can take a fake IQ online, just like anyone can claim they're a Nigerian Prince with $200 million dollars.
Not that you can tell the difference.
You whined to /u/WarCanine about not loaning his dog out.
Unless you want to then you'll lie to get what you want.
Yeah I know. I didn't have to suck dog dick to figure that out either.
Clearly you don't know much about dogs. Seen this happen before and the pair had no problem mating albeit they didn't tie.
Dogs who mount for dominance will not attempt penetration(unless they're female in which they cannot penetrate).
Because she's ignoring you obviously.
50+ years of family(albeit extended) experience trumps this.
Prove it then.
Because you only associate mounting with sex because you fetishize everything about dogs. You probably think a dog yawning means sex.
Or maybe it's because she's not a piece of shit like you.
What part of fetish do you not understand Mr. Salazar? Can you comprènde that?
Unlike you I've had a real IQ test and not in some third world shithole either.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. It's easy to tell by your writing patterns even if you deny it. You pretend to be intelligent online and you will often repeat yourself again and again as a way to "show" you're smart. When people don't agree with you or prove you wrong you result to saying they're wrong or bigots for not agreeing with you.
You claimed meat was unhealthy for him but he's proving to be the picture of health. Also I had a healthy shit today. I had a nice salad the other day along with a rare T-Bone, washed it down an hour later with a Long Island Iced Tea. Five hours later I had some raspberry gelato and two hours before bed I spent my time on Reddit and alternating between watching one of Mercedes Carrera's videos. Woke up in the morning and dropped five nice sized logs in the toilet, three of which were bright green and the other two light brown with flecks of black pepper in them. Four hours ago I dropped a couple more nice sized logs, these ones had raspberry seeds in them.
Actually you just have a fetish for doing this, hence why you brag about it. I work with kids but I also deal with their abusers and they use the same excuses as you and exhibit the same kind of behavior as you. They also like to brag about how no one knew(until they were finally found out) just like you. You also mentioned you're a dog trainer. Which has me wondering if the you're honest about the dogs in your videos. You didn't post them to educate people, you posted them because you're something of an exhibitionist but also to show that you were using dogs that were not yours. The only reason I know what the description says on your videos is because I spoke to someone who was willing to go to one of those websites. Someone who had an account on gaybeast. I don't think I have to name her. She copied and pasted your half-assed apology on the videos where you use dogs that aren't yours. Including the so called "stray" you encountered.
Yes you. You claim to be smart but you're so stupid that unless told otherwise you assume any dog is available for you to use. Someone with an IQ of supposedly 134 would know better. Unless you're a narcissist as well and think every dog is yours to use which you do think.
You're not a victim at all Sal.
And you as well if the owners kill their dogs because they believe they're tainted now. That's all on you, because you could keep your pants zipped.
She didn't upload videos nor brag about using other people's pets. You do/did.
Not much of a brain then is is? Also you still don't understand sayings do you? Ever hear of the term "Don't let the little head think for the big head"?
Luck turns. And yours appears to be running out. How long until you pick the wrong dog and you get mauled? You're not going to admit what you were doing so you'll lie and pretend to be the innocent victim. If something like this happens you'll come here and lie and claim you told the cops the truth. Or what if you pick a dog that belongs to a cartel member or some low level drug dealer with a temper? Those exist in Costa Rica by the way. What happens then hmm?
Except fornth fact that someone found you out and posted your real name. Remember how you got made at SaberCat for calling you by your real name? Who's to say that doesn't happen again? Who's to say that this person isn't just going to stop at a mere doxxing? As I said you only have yourself to blame if something happens to your dogs and other people's dogs.
Being fitful to a single partner. Not fucking or loving anyone else but your partner. I know what monogamy means. Like I said. Majority of dogs are not monogamous.
You have the right to not let it happen, is your dog after all, you can restrict him/her from being free to chose their sex partners. But in the end, you don't give a rational reason for why not allow her to have sex with some one else if she wants it. You are being selfish and jealous. But again, is your dog, you can be as selfish as you want and as jealous as you want.
"And you know what's funny? My girl only shows sexual behaviors to me and no one else."←Good for you?
"So I'm not keeping her from doing anything, and even if she wanted to (which is as rare as finding a 200 bill on the street) I could do it for her because I'm her trusted partner."←If she wanted some one else, you can't become that some one else, so you can't do it for her.
I don't see them as sex monsters.
If you can't help her at the moment, I see no problem with it. I think is cruel to not deal with an animal sexual needs, as long as you are helping her from time to time, that is OK.
[deleted]
Let's look up the definition.
IT
1.
used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex.
2.
used to identify a person.
Ouch, HURTS, doesn't it, brother?
Also, I've been using ''they'' more than ''it'' with animals. Time to improve, Aluzky!
That's right, I know my dog isn't. Wow, problem solved!
I am not jealous nor am I selfish.
This was from long ago when I sometimes HAD to refuse because humans were around.
Otherwise, I never deny her requests.
And that brings me to the next point: I'm not keeping her from ANYTHING as she is never in need of sex because I help her out and that no human I have ever met has asked such a thing.
I also am very phobic of human germs, especially the genitals. This is quite normal for a zoophile exclusive as you are NOT attracted to humans, so their genitals are a very disgusting thing.
Do you think it's hygenic to let others kiss and have sex with my girl?
There's sperm and saliva everywhere in and on her, that shit's disgusting. I might as well kiss with the human and suck their dicks as their germs and body fluids are already in my body anyways.
Implying I'm not keeping her from anything.
But she never did. Also, no evidence.
Oh yeah, nevermind: Sex objects.
That's your opinion.
I think it's sad to keep animals from relieving them like that, but it isn't cruel. That's way too overboard.
And as I already said, humans were around. I HAD to refuse.
What hurts? Are you ok? And... I'm not your relative. Your reply doen't make much sense.
That is great.
Was my coment directed at you? I belive it was directed at warcanine. And what you mean by problem solved? I don't understand.
I din't called you jealous nor selfish, I was talking about Warcanine. If youa re none of those, good for you.
I think you got what I said to him wrong, i mean selfish asin his dog wanting sex with other humans and him not letting her do that. Obviusly, if your dog wants sex and poeple is arpound, you can't just do that infront of poeple.
Again, I was not talking to you, I was talking to Warcanine. Or, are you warcanine? If you are him, are you saing that if a human (who is disease free) where to want sex with your bitch, and your bitch also wanted sex with him, would you let it happen? If you don't let that happen, explain why.
Germs in human genitals are the same or similar to dogs genitals. To me, it sounds like you are making invalid excuses. Do you wash your hand s20 times a day? Take baths 3 times a day? Stuff like that? because if youa re phobic of human germs, you would do stuff like that.
If the human sdoen't have any STD or sickness like the flue, yes, it is not unhygienic. Obviusly, I'm not asking you to let some one with AIDS have sex with her. Even though, you could just not have sex with her for a weeks and any traced of AIDS would be gone from your dog system.
So, the hygene part makes no sense, you can avoid getting stuff if you don't have sex with her for a while afterr the other person had sex with her.
That is your problem, not her problem. She doen't mind that (I asume) and you also cum in her and kiss her I asume. So, you are not making much sense.
Calm down. If the guy fuck your bitch and kiss her, you can wait a couple of days and no traces of his saliba and germs will be present, nobody is telling you to suck her semen filled pussy right after he is done... take a chill pill and stop looking for invalid excuses.
I imply nothing.
No evidence of what? And we are talking about hypoteticals in here. In case she did, why won't you allow it. Give me a rational answer.
I don't see them as sex objects either. lol
Correct. A logically sound opinion based on facts.
Animals can suffer from stress when they don't get sex. Stress leads to negative sidefects like lost of hair, destructive behabior, risk of self harm and so on. Animals can also seek to mastrubate themslves, and since they can't do that too well, they may harmf themslves. What is the point of not helping a dog in need? (asuming youa re alone in private and you can do it) seriusly, if the person can only give bullshit reasons to not do it then she/he is being purposly cruel to the dog.
Cruel definion: willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
yes, causing suffering to a dog (by sexcually depriving him/her or giving no consernt to his/her sexual needs, is literally cruel acording to the dictionary definon. Call it overboard if you want, it fits the word.
I undferstand that reason. And my cometns is not about those kind of situations.
That I just have proven that I don't see them as objects, despite having called animals ''it's.''
You've been saying that I've been treating them like objects because I called some animal ''it's'' at some time, yet now you're not sure what to say because I debunked that shit. That should hurt because you kept talking about it.
Because my girl is monogamous. You claimed there is a chance that they are monogamous!
Well, I'm using your logic.
And yes, I am WarCanine. I'm using an alternate account for reasons.
Man, took you long to realize I was. Any smart person would've already known.
Yeah well you claimed I wasn't. Good you finally know you're wrong for once.
My ass.
Based on your own opinions. Yes, an opinion based on your own opinion. Okay then.
I've already explained why: Human germs.
I can help her with her sexual urges (Partially, she's too small for me so sadly she will never lose her virginity (or me for that matter) as there are no ways to widen a bitches' vagina as you're probably lying about that too.): Animals aren't that picky. Their goal is: They want sex. Not: I want to have sex with that human in particular. The only preference they have is that they'd rather fuck their own species. If you want animals to have the best sexual experience, give them a friend of the same species so they can have MORE fun together if that really is your main goal.
Even then it doesn't matter, such a thing never happened and it'll never will since she has no interest in others nor have I luckily met another zoophile, not to mention they'd have to be polygamous and not phobic of human germs, which is very rare.
That's not how it works. Humans are disgusting to me, dogs are not. There's no similarity here.
Do you not understand that if I'm not attracted to something, their genitals are disgusting? This is for A LOT of humans. You even said you disliked female human genitals yourself.
This isn't an excuse, I'm a very serious germaphobe and am disgusted by humans mostly, especially body fluids and genitals.
I don't wash my hands 20s times a day, but as a child I used to (NOT kidding here, it might have been over 20, my hands were destroyed because of it.) But to be a germaphobe you don't have to be like this, I never touch humans so I don't have to clean myself THAT much. And it's not like every time I touch humans I'll wash my hands.
Even then, if I accidentally touch a human's hair I was my hands with a lot of soap. And if it's on my food I almost throw it all away.
The point is, humans are disgusting and if they were to touch my girl sexually, I'd never leave her alone one second because of trust issues and I would never have sex with her either as humans are disgusting.
How would you like it if you had human cum in your mouth becuase someone had sex with your bitch? If you don't care, then you're part of a minority.
And I thought you cared about the animal's sexual urges? Because making them wait weeks is cruel in your definition as they'd miss out on a lot of chances of having sex.
Still, human germs are always stuck in her even after weeks. If a vet examines your dog, they'd know because there'd be at least one small trace that a human had sex with them. DNA stays for a long time.
Not to mention that's not how my germaphobia works in my way. I see something as ''tainted.''
When a cat or a human vomits somewhere, I'll never touch that again.
I don't cum in her because she's too small to have sex with humans. (Or dogs for that matter, she was left with a male dog once and he tried to mount her even though she was resisting but he couldn't even get it in. Altough a bigger breed than her. My mom isn't exactly smart.) And there's no way we ever will. If we truly can't find a way to have real sex together I may cut all the sexual contact because I find it pretty sad for her. She begged for me to have sex with her when I tried to insert my dick but couldn't. I couldn't sleep because she kept bothering me about it.
So I try to get rid of having any sexual contact so she may learn to stop asking me for it. I have a big feeling of guilt that I am not able to do this. I already have a very low self esteem with sex, as I fear I am not doing it properly or truly pleasure her.
I know the decision itself is pretty ridiculous but I'm not sure on how to improve on this or what to do.
And yes I kiss her, but I am myself. Are you not more disgusted by others germs than your own? If not, you are again part of a VERY small minority.
Yeah, I implied something. Not you.
There's no ''in case'' because she never did and has never shown such behavior.
Okay.
This is way too overboard.
This isn't true as I know animals who aren't spayed or neutered that don't ever have sex and they don't act like this.
Not to mention we had a few dogs who were never neutered and did such a thing.
The closest thing I have seen is my bitch who can't stop bothering me from time to time because we can't have real sex. I find it pretty sad for her but I just can't fit in her. I guess it really depends on the animal.
So if somebody texts me and says that they really want to have sex with me and I say no because I have no interest, I'm being cruel to them?
Alright, nice logic man. Oh wait, you're too delusional so you don't know about sarcasm, let me just put this here for you: /s
Then like usual you assumed wrongly.
According to Aluzky? Yep you're cruel and evil. I'm not attracted to 500 pound women, guess I'm being cruel too.
He'd enjoy it. I mean this IS Aluzky you're talking about. He'd probably DEMAND that he be the only one to suck the cum out of bitch.
I really don't understand how you can have sex with something while you're not attracted to them.
Or in this situation, have body fluids in your mouth of something that you aren't attracted to.
This seems to be a trend here lately that such a thing isn't considered disgusting.
Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks something like that just isn't something that should happen (Not that it's wrong, but that it's default for humans to be disgusted by such a thing) or just makes no sense?
Like, I imagine someone like you would think animal pussies or dicks would be disgusting as fuck, no?
Or at least knowing that the person had sex with an animal turns you off greatly?
Me neither. Aluzky can't seem to grasp this hence why he keeps asking people to fuck their pets. Like dude I'm only just barely being civil here, only reason I'm not acting like an anti is because of the folks here that said they don't target other folks animals. At least they have good sense, you seem to be among the more rational folks here as well.
Yeah not happening. I'm not interested in animal jizz just like you're not interested in human jizz.
Exactly. As much as I love animals I don't love animals and honestly my skin still crawls at the topic. However I've actually made it a point to not be an asshole to people here, well some people at least. That being said I don't find animal genitalia to be fun to look at. The closest I'd probably get to fucking a non-human would be if Quintus Sertorius/Mr. Quinlan were real and even then he's a dhampire .
Also a massive turn off. Sorry if I sound crabby, work was particularly stressful today.
Let me try to shed some light on your first question. Aluzky, like many other, seems to mistake love for sex as actual love, despite the former clearly is a matter of ego. Our sex lib culture has done everything to degrade sexuality into something that barely exceeds the importance of a consumable good and Aluzky is just another example of this. Our consumeristic attitude mutated sex into something you just can consume, even "normal" relationships have become less and less significant, an example for this would be the divorce rates as well as the perceivable deterioration of marriage as a lifelong commitment into a consumer friendly, temporary treaty you sign with another, but easily quit instead of sorting out problems. Consumer friendly.
The "love" these people live is like the "love" for a grocery store that happens to offer your favourite good; they don´t love the grocery store, they love what they can "buy" there. We´ve seen a huge mechanisation of sexuality , a commercialisation of sexuality and being intimate isn´t a thing strictly reserved for this one individual you´re feeling closest to anymore. As much as I hate our A-hole, but this isn´t his fault, he´s just a symptom of a bigger devaluation of sexuality in general.
This is what I call the "supermarket mentality". You just take some of this, some of that, with only your own satisfaction in mind, totally eradicating all the aspects and effects a real relationship has/should have on your soul. Mindless, egotistical sex robots, that´s what we´re supposed to become. Basically, it´s capitalistic 101: create demand and make money by meeting the demand you created. A pornographisation of society.
As much as I appreciate sex education, I hate the fact that this obviously has led to a misunderstanding of sex as "just another" urge/demand, just like eating or buying goods. Insofar, it doesn´t matter for A-hole what dick is stuck in him, what "pussy" he sticks his dick in; the relevant thing is that a dick is stuck in him, that he sticks his dick into a "pussy". Sex as a means of achieving advantages ("I let him fuck me and he gave me access to his dog harem"), sex as a demystified fuction of the body negating the soul, sex as a tradeable good, sex as a means of self gratification rather than a source of mutual enjoyment and deep connection. The mechanisation of fucking.
That´s my take on this and the reason why I´m so opposed to this entire polyamourous stuff; although I own four mares now, I never ever will sleep with another one than my Tinker mare I feel deep love and connection with. A deep connection, trust, empathy, putting your partner before yourself...all of this is why I´m strictly monogamous and will never cheat on my equine partner. Others don´t seem to evaluate actual love in the same way, I even suspect that mankind partially has lost its ability to grasp the very concept of love intellectually and emotionally. Aluzky is just one of them who mistakes their love for sex/fucking, their instrumentalisation of sexuality as a mere good that´s tradeable and can be used to gain personal advantages. Sex as an instrument instead of an expression of deep and profound feeling for another being. And as I gladly greet any new progress of sexology research, I also see that we have strayed from the path here with "sex science", towards an orgiastic fucktopia where fucking with someone means barely more than a handshake or saying a quick "Hello!". This isn´t a mistake only the "zoophiles" suffer from, but our entire society IMHO. The so called "zoophiles" like Aluzky only may be more receptible to that because they already have crossed a line and disconnected from love as a non-egotistical expression of a deep connection towards a self centered "Me first" attitude.
Just my two cents...
No.
This is the exact answer I wanted. It's not like you're going around ''Ewww wtfff.'' in our faces.
I'm not bothered by this as this is just good logic. I won't judge someone else for not liking animals that way lmao.
Ah ok. But like I said, bad day at work.
Hey if you wanna slurp the jizz of several different dudes out of your dog that's your problem.
I agree. Your point?
Your attraction to animals is purely a fetish. Similar to how people that get off to feet think feet are always sexual.
My apologies to any foot fetishist out there. I don't mean to offend you by comparing you to Aluzky.
Fetish: Non-emotional and sexual attraction for non-living objects. or for non-sexual body parts (also know as partialism)
First, animals are not objects and they are LIVING. So, my attraction to them can't be a fetish.
Second, my attraction to dogs is not only sexual but also emotional, I had my K9 boyfriend (or husband, RIP) and now I have my K9 girlfriend. I fit the definition of zoosexual. Which is a sexual orientation or paraphilia, it is not a fetish.
I don't see puppies in a sexual way. If I had a "dog fetish" I would see all dogs as a sexual object. And I already clarify it, you can't have an actual fetish for a dog, as they are not dead objects. Even bestialists don't literally see dogs as non-living objects.
Why would they be offended?
Until someone doesn't doesn't blow one or lick one.
You do. Your comments are proof of this.
Men have fetishes for human women, they're alive.
Still doesn't mean it's not a fetish.
Sorry, I don't understand your reply. Why are you saying this to my comment?
Can you be more specific? Where in my comments you can find such proof? If you can't prove it, then it is only your subjective opinion, not a fact. (I would be a dog-fetishist only in your imagination, not in real life)
Nope, what they have is called partialism, which is a subgroup of fetishes. Partialism is defined as sexual attraction to a non-sexual body part. Example: Feet, ears, hair and so on. If they happen to have an attraction for a living human, then by definition, they don't have a fetish.
FYI: people can have multiple overleaping orientations or paraphilias or fetishes. You can have a person who is heterosexual and also have a foot fetish for men.
Fetish is literally defined as a sexual attraction for non-living objects, or no-sexual body parts. They don't fit the definition of fetish nor the definition of partialism.
Because you'd probably rant at someone for not blowing a dog even if it was a puppy.
You pretend that you post videos to educate but you do it because you like to show off sexually, you get a thrill showing off videos of doing things with dogs that don't belong to you. You claim to have stopped but only because you like using other people's dogs behind their backs. Not because you like the dogs but because you get off knowing that their owners are unaware of what you're really doing. You also entertain the idea of specifically going after dogs that belong to people that don't like zoos or beastialists(like yourself). Hence why you've begun to say that you could have sex with my Wolfdog.
Dogs aren't a sexual body part though that doesn't stop you. By your own definition you have a dog fetish.
It is preferable to not do sexual stuff with puppies as they are not mentally nor physically mature.
Correct, I like to show off that the claims from bigots are false. In my videos you can see that i love dogs, that they love me and that the sex is consensual, the opposite of what the bigots claims. That is one of the reason i uploaded those videos. The other reason was to give back to the zoo-comunity who also shared their videos with me.
False attribution fallacy. You can't prove that your claim is true. FYI: I get a trill of orgasming, I don't need to make videos to do that.
I stop because it is now illegal to have non-abusive zoosex in my country. I don't want to leave evidence of illegal activity.
More false attribution fallacies. FYI: I get of by having sex with dogs. I don't give a fuck if they are owned by some one, stray, mine, or if the owner knows or doesn't know that I'm having sex with their dog.
Same as above, I don't care who the owner is or what they think.
I said that because it is a fact. If your wolfdog is intact, there is a significant chance that he may like sex with me. I said this in response to you saying that your dog would maul me if i where to try anything sexual with him. And you already acknowledged that your dogwolf doesn't bite but growl when touched. So, who is the lier? Does your dog bite or not? You are contradicting yourself.
Whatever you say retard.
When he attacks you I'm not going to call him off immediately.
You're not a bitch and your ass isn't a pussy.
Because I know Kleng you don't. But hey it's your funeral, not that you'll really be missed by many people.
Yeah by his vet(and that's not often) or me(not often and only if I see a tick on his ballsack). But the fact that he growls means he's saying "Stop touching me I don't like this." If you continue to ignore him then congratulations you're a rapist and you're going to get mauled. /u/30-30 if you touch one of your mares and one of them reacts in a way that says she's not ok with the way you touch her or where you touch her would you stop or would you continue to touch her?
It's still you and now I'm 100% certain you're a rapist. Thanks for proving my point.
Not me or his vet.
Whatever you say dog rapist.
Sigh.
You already said that he doesn't bite. You keep contradicting yourself.
Most of the time they don't care about that. And if I where to use bitch language and smell like one, odds would be in my favor.
More contradictions. And you have never tried to incite him to have sex. So you can't know.
So, he does maul other humans?
I agree. Which is why I would not do that if he actually shows that behavior.
You are the one claiming that your dog doesn't bite when touched in the genitals and now you claim that he does bite. That sounds like a lie. But if is not a lie, OK, I will believe you.
Where is the evidence that I'm a rapist?
What is your point and how did I prove it?
OK, why he doesn't bite the vet?
I take that back, you are not contradicting if you specify that he doesn't bite specific people. And who is a dog rapist?
Do you really need to ask why?
Yes, I do need to ask. I don't understand why they would be offended. As a human I have a thirst for knowledge.
faceplam
You really don't know?
YouTube isn't a bastion for knowledge, neither is brainjet or Buzzfeed. You have a thirst for dog sperm, sloppy 7ths and other people's dogs.
Why would they be offended?
Knowledge can come from anywhere. There is plenty knowledge in those places.
You finally got one right.
And you fail again.
You're the one who goes after other people's dogs and said you would suck the sperm of several different guys out of a dog.
I don't specifically go after other people dogs, if the opportunity present itself under the right conditions, I won't say no.
Humans sense taste bad (I have taste my own to see how it taste) I don't have any interest in sucking human sperm out of a dog orifice.
You would need to pay me a very good amount of money to do that or something of equal value.
[deleted]
Yet you whine at people who don't want to fuck their animals or loan them out to you or people SPECIFICALLY like you. That's like getting mad at a straight guy for not blowing his gay friend.
What you mean by whine about people who don't want to fuck their animals?
What you mean by whine about people who don't want to loan their dogs to me or people SPECIFICALLY like me?
What you mean by getting mad? Where I have got mad or whined?
And it is not the same. A straight guy doesn't have a responsibility to take care of a gay person sexual needs. A dog owner does have a responsibility of taking care of all their dog needs (including any sexual needs that the dog may have) so, that is very different from your analogy. Your analogy is fallacious.
Maybe just ranted at Lady for not being attracted to her damn dogs.
You whined about people not letting others fuck their animals.
Your recent comments.
I don't fuck dogs I fuck women. You know? Human beings? Tend to have great asses? Wet pussies and nice tits? Tend to have good personalitys?
Finally you said something intelligent.
I only like having sex with women, Kleng doesn't like anyone getting near his junk. I'm not attracted to Kleng because he isn't a human. Do you understand that? Oh wait never mind you don't because you're a sex-obsessed idiot.
Prove it then.
Because I only fuck people I'm attracted to and that's still only been one person. Keep in mind I'm talking about human beings not animals, my boyfriend is a heterosexual Caucasian Homo Sapien. I'm not attracted to animals hence why I am not going to fuck one. Do you understand that or is your grasp on the English language still as shitty as it was a few months ago?
Taking care of a pet needs has nothing to do with who you like to fuck.
You don't have to fuck one to take care of their needs. Though, you may have to give a pet a hand/finger if they happens to have sexual needs and they happen to be your pets. If you don't do that, you are not being a good pet owner as you would be neglecting your pets needs.
Is a mistake of humans to not count sexual needs of pets as part of the needs that we need to take care off as responsible owners.
Few months ago my english grasp was not shitty at all.
You ask people to finger or jack off their animals. That's like asking a straight man to suck dick.
What do you think fingering or jerking them off is?! Oi /u/30-30 does fingering or jerking off count as sex? Aluzky seems to be forgetting what sexual contact/activity is!
My dogs have tongues and intact stallions are capable masturbating without help and from what I've read so can mares. I'm capable of taking care of myself when I'm not with my boyfriend, hence why I don't ask random people to finger me. Not that I'll expect you to understand any of that.
They can take care of themselves just fine they don't need my help. As I have no desire to have sexual contact with my animals because I can only have sex with people I'm attracted to. If I was going to do that I would have to be attracted to my animals, which I am not. I'm only attracted to human men(emphasis on human) between the ages of 21 and however old Ron Perlman is. Oh and human woman typically 23 to 50(especially dark haired inked up tough women). Not animals.
Most people don't fuck their pets because they're not attracted to them. Do you understand that? Oh wait no you don't you're a moron.
You couldn't even tell what country you were from and had been in.
Not the same, because a straight man doesn't have a legal and moral responsibility to suck a man dick. Where a pet owner has a legal and moral respectability to take care of all the needs of their pets. And if their pets has sexual needs, then he/she should also take care of those needs. They should get a cactus if they don't want a "pet" that has sexual needs.
Straw man fallacy. I never said that jerking/fingering a dog is not sex. I said that you don't have to fuck a dog (By fuck, I mean sticking your dick in her vagina or letting him stick his dick in your orifices)
Never seen a dog use their tongue to reach orgasm.
I'm quite ignorant about horses. But I'm sure that not all of them are capable of masturbating till orgasm. At which point, the owner should help.
Same as above, not all mares will be skillful enough to reach orgasm on their own.
You are a human with a pair of arm and average IQ I would assume, so that is not a surprise. You can't say the same about non-human animals. They have much harder times masturbating till orgasm.
Like I said before, if your pets don't have such needs or they have them but they can take care of it on their own without significant risk of harm, then you are not being irresponsible.
You don't need to be sexually attracted to a dog or horse to give them a hand/finger. And doing that is no different from cleaning their fur or ears or picking up their shit.
So, if you had pets with sexual needs and they where unable to help themselves, you would ignore their needs and let them get sexually frustrated? So, you are not irresponsible know, but you would be if you have the bad luck of having a pet with sexual needs?
No comment.
Captain obvius.
I do.
No need to be disrespectful. And no, i have an IQ of 134, which is the total opposite of a moron. Moron IQ is around 30 if the memory doesn't fail me.
Says who? Got evidence that such claim is true?
You and Riley Dennis have the same bullshit logic. I'm not attracted to animals hence why I don't have sexual contact with them. I'm not attracted to people who look like the mutants from The Hills Have Eyes either.
Actually it's not.
So why don't you understand that I don't have sexual feelings for animals then?
Since you're likely ignorant of human anatomy, female human beings(such as myself) don't have dicks.
Neither of those is going to happen nor am I going to finger my dog or jerk them or or perform oral on them. The only genitalia I'm putting my mouth on belongs to my human boyfriend.
So much for you being a so called vet tech.
Thank goodness for the horses. Hopefully you don't molest them either.
Stallions and geldings typically achieve this by "flexing" their penis.
I'm not attracted to horses either.
They masturbate by rubbing against objects and by "winking" their vulva.
My dogs can manage just fine. They don't need my help.
I told you they can take care of themselves. Why are you so obsessed with other people and so interested in telling people to have sex with animals? Molesting dogs at the vet's office not enough for you anymore?
Yet why do you keep telling people who aren't animal fuckers to give handies to their pets then?
Actually it is. Cleaning fur and picking up shit isn't sexual(to normal people), sexual favors like handjobs and blowjobs are.
Since I'm not attracted to them or their genitalia, yes. However as I said before most animals like dogs and horses can take care of their own needs. And no I'm not going to pimp my animals out to people like you.
That's what I've been telling you.
My dogs aren't very sexual anyway. The two males are intact but old and the female was spayed before I adopted her.
What? Just letting you know I only like humans. Not everyone is like you.
You completely missed the point retard. People who aren't like you will not have any sexual contact with their animals because it's not their thing. Can you understand that or are you going to continue pretending to be stupid?
And there's no need for me to have sex with animals yet you won't respect that. So why the fuck should I respect you exactly?
So you say.
You claim to have that IQ. Keyword here being "claim."
You definitely sound like a moron.
You PM'd me months ago before you ran off saying that you mistakenly said you were from the USA. After I pointed out where you both deny and claim this.
Not Warcanine, but I'd like to interject.
That's a binary classification. To put it into a different light, that's like a heterosexual rapist saying "You're straight too, just like me" to a heterosexual sub. But they aren't the same. Saying they are the same or even in the same boat ignores the fundamental liberties and limitations of their adjectives. That's not to say you are a rapist, but you and WarCanine have wildly different feelings and approaches to the same thing.
It's rational to trust that a certain stereotype is accurate when every major news source in the country repeats it, and when the verbiage surrounding it is aimed against it. Most people made an informed decision in loathing zoos, in part because enough people validated their concerns.
Your frontal lobe(aka planning and consequences) still has a great deal of development until it is mature, even into your late teens... so this is false.
And you think a 16 yo would understand legal custody? Anyone in the US, of any age, can have legal ownership of a pet, or have that ownership transferred to them. I had legal ownership of one of the cats in my care since I was eight. To minors though, the dog is just family nine times out of ten. The law isn't comething you start considering in the home until you're 18-20, if my own observations are any indication. It's important to note that actions carried out as a result of exhausted willpower or ignorance of something that can be reasonably expected to be unknown at the time normally don't reflect on the person later in life. There are many things I did even in my late teens that I would never do today, and accordingly nobody judges me for stuff I did then. I'm not that person anymore, and I'm better for it.
....
"Zoos also are guilty of killing and raping animals whether we like it or not."
Also, warcanine doesn't want to make it look like people like you don't exist. He wants to make clear that among zoophiles, you aren't the norm.
If something that is otherwise ethical would cause harm to others through trauma induced by their own moral predilections, then it has a significant capacity for harm. Copulating with someone else's pet is a severe violation in the eyes of most pet owners and would cause harm to said owner if you were discovered. Even if you're 'unlikely to get caught', the best approach is to take the path that has the least potential for harm... which constitutes reserving intimacy for nonhuman animals in your care.
Warcanine is saying that some one is not a zoophile if they do fence jumping or rape or has sex with dogs without owner consent. I'm correcting him on that as his position is not factual.
Stereotypes by definition are not always accurately reflect reality. Blindly trusting that a stereotype is factual is not rational. They may think that their belief was reached in a rational way but it was not.
Fixed that for you.
Many countries agree that by age 15 you are already mature to know the consequences of your. Me, I don't like drawing clear cut lines base on age as that is arbitrary. I know that there are 25 year old who are immature and 14 year olds that are more mature than that 25 year old.
pretty sure that the majority of 15 year olds and older who had sex with the family dog knew what they where doing and consciously chose to not let anyone know about their sexual behaviors with the family dog.
Why would a 16 year old be unable to understand that?
Pretty sure that a minor can only own propriety through the use of a guardian. In which case, the guardian is the own owning the property as a place holder till the minor is 18+
Well, I'm not well informed of US laws, maybe this is not the case on US or some US states.
Like I said, that may be true for your country/state. Not true for other places where minors are not allowed to own property.
If some places do allow minors to own property, then I'm partially wrong about my claim. But my claim still stands in places where minors can't own property.
Irrelevant. The dog would still be some one else property in places where minors can't own property.
No comment.
He has yet to said that I'm not the norm.
Correct, but only if they find out about it. Key word: Don't let them find out about it. Not that hard to have sex in private where nobody will ever find out about it.
Keyword: Discovered.
The path with least potential for harm is to not even have sex or relationships with animals (not even with your own animals) as to not offend the bigots and not harm their feelings. I won't take that path. I take the path where i get to have sex and relationship with dogs while keeping that hidden from them as to not potentially harm them.
"Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic." The goal of a news agency is, logically, to distribute truthful information. It is logical to expect that their news is accurate, because most of the time it is. News agencies are what we in the states call credible sources. We can use them to cite events with a reasonable expectation that they properly represent events and trends that we would otherwise not be privy to. Slightly less logically but still sound is the observation that since the media in general is in agreement about this, and there is no trustworthy conflicting information. Humans by nature classify things, and these classifications are normally really, really useful and pretty accurate. Is there some error? Sure, but it still works, and it's logical to classify 'like things' because it's reasonable to expect that they operate by similar mechanisms.
Saying "They're the crazy ones!" is a convenient defense, but it never helps anyone's cause.
No, you didn't. I can cite literally hundreds of articles from credible news sources that show criminal behavior in those who have sexual relations with nonhumans. If I used all of those citations in a paper on the subject, it would be considered a well reasoned and well researched paper. If you're simply going to denigrate the reasoning of everyone that's against you, then you're no better than the people you're denigrating.
Now you're committing the same fallacy that you thought was happening by trusting news sources, except this time it's even worse(Ad populem). Legislative bodies within countries are rarely any more informed on a topic than a layperson. There are not psychologists in the government of each country working to determine when individuals are mature enough to be reasonably expected to understand the full extent of the law. You're also using an unsourced estimate, "pretty sure that the majority of 15 year olds". It's also not an accurate representation of what's going on. Now, I'd like to point you to a study that assessed why adolescents tend to approach danger differently from adults. This is supplementary to the understanding that the frontal lobe is not fully developed at the time.
There are 4 things to note, regarding adolescents, in light of this study.
So long as the shelter or breeder is willing to sell them to you, you can obtain legal ownership of a nonhuman animal at any age.
It's entirely relevant. If you don't interpret or understand the dog as being owned, or interpret it as being a shared ownership, then it's not a knowing infringement. You're not guilty of murder when pressing an unmarked red button kills someone, you're guilty of manslaughter because the two crimes are fundamentally different, one being much worse than the other in many capacities. We make room for such error because it's not fair to proffer the same consequences for it, as it is for an intentional infringement.
Because you know that it's the crux of the discussion, and avoiding it is necessary as a means of proverbial survival.
He has, many times. You're just misinterpreting him.
You're operating under the assumption that you won't get caught, when people who are monogamous with nonhumans in their care are themselves concerned about being caught in the act. We're to the point now that we have cameras that can map out entire rooms through walls, and they're getting cheaper to produce, more accessible, and more accurate. At the rate that privacy invading technology is advancing, it's no longer safe to assume that doing it behind closed doors will stop you from being found.
Keyword: "severe violation". Coupled with the above paragraph, you shouldn't assume you won't get discovered.
The difference in potential for harm between intimacy with nonhuman animals in your own care and not having intimate relations with them at all is comparatively negligible so long as you're responsible about it; the path of least harm is one of many such paths, as many are functionally the same by metric of severity. When you do it with other peoples' dogs, that potential for harm skyrockets. Imagine if you get outed, by someone that was made aware of what you did. Will "Zoophile commits bestiality with the dogs he was dogsitting" in the headlines be more harmful, or will it be "Zoophile had sexual relations with the dogs in his care, but never those of others". One of those headlines is much, much worse than the other for you and the personal security of every pet owner in the region. The former is something that every pet owner would see as a... severe violation. The latter, meanwhile, is pretty much the "Make a mean face at bestiality once every couple months then promptly forget about it" headline.
Also, bear in mind that in vivo biological diagnostic and monitoring technology is being developed and advanced as we speak; technology that will be able to pick up on the things you think you can't possibly be caught for. It would likely be integrated into microchips over time, meaning there would be almost no avoiding detection if the owners visit the vet regularly, and even if they don't, assuming they have their documentation in order and remember who dogsat that day, they'll know who did it. The way tech is progressing, getting caught is an inevitability with other peoples' dogs. I can tell you one thing, your veterinarian is much more likely to 'overlook' oxytocin and endorphin spikes than your protestant neighbors are.
We accomplished nothing? Because we didn´t offer you the advice YOU wanted to hear? "You´re all holy because you´re loyal to your beasts..." No, I´m loyal to my partner!
"We have been happy for 2 years so why mess that up?" So, why haven´t you said that to yourself BEFORE you told your boyfriend you´re a bestialist constantly cheating on him with a dog?
In another post, you wrote "If I got my way"...well, that seems to be the case. Little egobitch has her way now. What a splendid and outstanding relationship you lead....I´s sorry for your boyfriend and your dog.
"Luckily, I have real friends in real life I can talk to..." Suuuure. Everybody knows that people posting their problems online only do this because they have an armada of loyal friends in real life they can discuss with. Who does not prefer some replies from online strangers when he/she can talk with "real friends" in a familiar and relaxed atmosphere...?
Late to the thread. I might try explaining to him that it's a different sort of relationship, my wife and I are zoos and the relationship we have with our dogs is different than the relationship we have with each other. Can't bitch about work to the dogs, I mean I guess you can, but you'll only get wags in return. :P In that sense I don't see it as cheating, the dog is filling a hole that only a dog could fill, and your boyfriend is filling a hole that only he could fill.
You came here hoping everybody would validate your feelings and tell you it's okay what you are doing and that you're right. You didn't come here for advice, you even said so in your post. And you have a hissy fit when people call your behavior and opinions out for what they really are.
Your language shows that you clearly think your boyfriend should just suck it up and accept that you'll be fucking a dog on the side. Have you REALLY taken the time to think how bizarre that is to tell somebody? And when he pushes back after being told that not only are you a zoophile, but you actually have sexual relationships with dogs, you get all huffy and exasperated?? LOL. Fuck that.
Yes. Yes you should
Your initial hesitation to call it cheating shows how you are trying to justify your behavior and deal with your cognitive dissonance so you can live with yourself.
implies that whether it's cheating or not is really just an opinion, rather than the fact it really is.
I'd bet there are plenty of people in this community in a similar situation. Probably, most of them respect their partner more than you, and actually are faithful when their partner asked for a monogamous relationship. Because the adult, respectful thing to do when you find yourself caught between two attractions isn't to indulge in both of them anyway even if it means hurting somebody. It's to do some introspection and decide what you really want, and to put an end to the relationship with the other person before you cheat on them.
I hope you break up with your boyfriend, or that he breaks up with you. Because he deserves better.
LOL, nice framing. You didn't just "think to cheat." You HAVE been cheating on him:
"Why isn't my boyfriend okay with suddenly knowing I've been cheating on him with a dog for our whole relationship???"
Do you know what a hyperbole is? Did you read my comment again after I edit it to make it more clear? Like I said, it is a scientific fact that neutering your dog will only have negative side effect for him, some of those side effect are DEATH. You are "playing with fire" if you neuter your male dog for non-medical reasons. If you care about your dog well being, you will not neuter him. In the end, it is your dog, we can't stop you if you wish to risk his life or lower his quality of life by neutering him.
I know a person who is 100 year old and smokes 60 cigarettes per day and she is as healthy as a stallion. I guess smoking is healthy and never increases the risk of any cancers. (sarcasm)
Sorry, but you are using anecdotal evidence from a bias sample to reach a conclusion that is not factual. Just because you have seen healthy dogs that are neutered that doesn't change the fact that on average, neutering is detrimental for dogs health, same way that watching healthy old heavy smokers doesn't disprove that on average, smoking is detrimental for your health and increases the risk of cancers.
Hang in there. I'd work him slowly into it and see what happens
OP, sorry if you feel like you didn't get the support/advice you were looking for. I don't entirely disagree with much of what's already been said, but as someone who's been in a similar situation, maybe I can give you a different perspective.
I ultimately left my husband because I realized my attraction to dogs was just too much for a marriage to bear. Many will tell you that you can love a man and a male dog at the same time--maybe this is true for some, but based on my own experiences and feelings, it may not be an option. I know it's a controversial position, but I truly wonder how one can truly love someone if one doesn't want/need him in the most primal of ways. It took years of denial and a devastating divorce for me to realize that the only reason I sought out human companionship (of the marital/romantic sort) was because everything I had been taught to want and seek growing up was based on the ideal of a normal, monogamous marriage with a man.
The real problem was that I didn't believe being exclusively zoosexual was possible, not that I didn't actually it most, deep down inside. So I took a leap, ended my marriage, and re-focused my life on having as many intimate/sexual relationships with as many attractive male dogs as possible, as frequently as possible. It took radical lifestyle and professional and material changes to make that happen, but I have never been happier.
It may sound shallow, and that my life is now only about sex, but it's not. When I really gave myself over and accepted myself as an exclusively zoosexual woman, I found that each encounter was like falling in love all over again. Different than how one imagines falling in love with another human being, but equally powerful if not more so. Each dog I've been with, whether once or a dozen times, is my mate and I am his--forever, even if we never see each other again. I feel I am wife to many husbands. Again, not in the sort of way one is married to a human being, but in the way we are connected forever and what we share cannot ever be undone. In short, when I really "leaned in" to my sexual attraction to dogs, I re-learned that love does not need to be the way Hollywood or the Bible tells us it is. I have never loved more.
Anyway, that's me. Not saying it is necessarily you, but I suspect many of us do not allow ourselves to entertain the notion of being exclusively zoosexual because we are so attached to normalized notions of companionship, marriage, love, etc. If you allow yourself to step over that moral-psychological line, many such preconceptions may fall away, and you may find more joy than you can presently imagine.
Also, I hurt someone very badly because of what I did. I wish I had never gotten married, rather than break someone's heart because I failed to look deep enough into mine to realize I didn't love him the way he deserved.
You say you love him, but dont want to give up the knott. Its still cheating, another male having sex with you. What if he decided to go sleep with other women... you sound like you cant commit. I do understand coming out about it. He still has to process this i think. Hes probably in shock.