Dog sex in a bdsm relationship.

[lark sparrow]

"this is a form of animal play that is not only legal, but much more inclusive to the BDSM community as a whole."

Lark Sparrow, why do you say this? Aren't the pony folk a bit rare? And the subs that eat from doggie bowls?

Hi Pure,

Take a look at the Pony Girl thread, and all the happy, eager postings... ooh that's hot! Take a look at this thread and all the ewwws... make sense now? The idea is not repugnant, nor morally charged for most. It's very accessible, though many might not actually engage in it. That's why I say this.

P.S. To be even more obvious in language, since subtle doesn't always stand out. The devil's advocate has already been played here, and things have been hashed out. I don't understand the need to keep it going, unless one just likes to stir things that smell less when settled and let be. The point in re-entering this thread for me was to try to help wind it down on a positive note that most could stomach, and had not already been talked to death. Most of us know where we stand personally, and it ain't changing. "Peace".

 

[MissTaken]

Again....nothing about you. Ishmael had you pegged it seems.

Too bad; I'd hoped he was wrong, because you have a good strong brain.

Lance

Oops

bad post

 

[MasterKensbeany]

In my opinion its simple. Animals are not sex toys.

Respectfully
beany

 

[lark sparrow]

Brava! and may this thread peacefully slip away on such a note

In my opinion its simple. Animals are not sex toys.

Respectfully
beany

 

[skye in silk]

just have to jump out of lurking to tell a sort of funny story. was on a chat site in a bdsm room. one of the so called "real life/respected Doms" and i were talking privately one night. The topic came up that i am actually a virgin. (techniqually despite toys, a female bonding incident when i was younger, and a vivid imagination). Anyways, so this Dom starts questioning me about pets...you can get where this is going...seems he thought that i should get a large dog, raise him just to fuck me...quaint wasn't he? charming really charming. needless to say we haven't talked since.

just have to add my horror to the others on this thread.

Skye

 

[skye in silk]

In my opinion its simple. Animals are not sex toys.

Respectfully
beany

oops didn't read the last post. sorry now for keeping this going...so let it end here. sorry folks.


Skye

 

[Guest]

In my opinion its simple. Animals are not sex toys.

I would have to agree. Never in my life have I used an animal as a sex toy. I doubt any real Zoophile ever would.

 

[lark sparrow]

oops didn't read the last post. sorry now for keeping this going...so let it end here. sorry folks.


Skye

Actually, my apologies Skye, I simply didn't want to be drawn back in to debate simply for sport. Tolerance is great but it only stretches so far.

It's not my intention to attempt to silence those who haven't spoken, or have something new to add... and of course I can't. But it seemed most in the forum had gotten their fill, and were at least vaguely annoyed or offended at one point or another... so since the question was directed at me, I went for ending it.

And I was also thinking that beany's post was actually something that most could agree with who care about animals and should be considered, regardless of their opinion on or interest in beastiality.

 

[Pure]

I don't agree with LS, that the subject has been talked to death.
If you think so, skip this posting.

Basically there's been an 'eww reaction' and one argument against.
========

Consider how the the 'eww' reaction would be responded to on any other topic:

I'm a female sub and my domme had me eat another sub's pussy and I don't know how I feel about it.

"Eewww, ewww, ewww." (first response)

"I agree, Ewww, ewww, eww, icky, icky." (next response)

How about: "Those are your views, fine; avoid pussy; try another thread."

===============
The points of actual talk or discussion were mainly Beany's as to the lack of animal consent as being a reason to avoid animal sex.

Perhaps no one wants to think any more;
So don't read further. Bye.

=======
But in case, here is a simple argument, point form, against Beany. And it will provide my views on the topic, since a couple inquired. (I suspect it may be BlessedBe's view also.)

1. Cruelty to an animal is illegal, wrong, repellant. Often linked with criminal tendencies or inbalance.

2. Cruelty means inflicting harm.

3. Harm consists of physical injury--which a vet can determine--and/or 'psychological' distress states which show in behavior. Examples:

4. Fear shows in cowering; sadness or depression in not moving about and not eating. In short, the animal is distressed or unhappy when it doesn't do things it normally does, be it dig, eat, climb, fetch bones, chase mice.

5. Beyond not inflicting harm, the idea of securing an animal's consent is nonsense.

6. But supposing animal consent is meaningful, I'd ask the one requiring consent for sex, if he also requires consent for the following---which is to say, he should tell us that he does not and would not do these acts:

Spaying an animal.
Breeding a bitch.
Selling her puppies to strangers.
Providing a stud to service.
Placing an animal in a kennel when going on vacation.
Operating on the animal to amputate a cancerous foot.
Putting it down now, instead of having an expensive operation that would only 'buy' another month of life.

7. (The whole issue of eating an animal, humanely slaughtered, is left aside for the moment.)

8. There's no reason or evidence the certain forms of sex with certain animals (for instance, those large enough, in case of penetration) harms them. One example already given was oral sex, by a human adult, on a male dog.

8a. Subs' usual distaste for animal sex--and the strangeness of the experience to them--makes it an ideal, if potent, form of domination, discipline or punishment, provided neither the animal or sub are harmed or endangered, and the sub, overall, is in a SSC (consensual) arrangement.

9. In general, there's no reason to condemn any acts by/with consenting adults that don't harm anyone or any living creature.

10. Children are presumed incapable of consenting to sex with adults, and are to be protected, by laws, from sexual exploitation.

11. One reason for the laws in that there is evidence that sexual exploitation--even with the child's alleged agreement--generally harms children, psychologically.

 

[lark sparrow]

Would you like to answer the question then?

Has anyone ever heard of this?? Have you been forced to perform with a canine?? Does the thought of this excite or repulse you?? Have you ever had any sexual relations with a dog?



kgboot
aka "Mr. Bootie"

Here's the original topic, Pure.

I think you only jumped in after everyone else had disclosed their personal feelings and/or experiences.

Would you like to answer the original question or stay in the land of theory and debate?

 

[MasterKensbeany]

Dear Pure

Let me make this clear please. I am not condeming those who use animals for sex as long as the animals aren't harmed in any way. I don't think its necessarily cruel or unhealthy for the animals. If that's their thing, then that's fine with me. I was stating my opinion that, for me, animals aren't sex toys.

6. But supposing animal consent is meaningful, I'd ask the one requiring consent for sex, if he also requires consent for the following---which is to say, he should tell us that he does not and would not do these acts:

Spaying an animal.
Breeding a bitch.
Selling her puppies to strangers.
Providing a stud to service.
Placing an animal in a kennel when going on vacation.
Operating on the animal to amputate a cancerous foot.
Putting it down now, instead of having an expensive operation that would only 'buy' another month of life.

This part of your argument I will take issue with though Pure, if only to play devil's advocate because I don't necessarily disagree with your what you're saying overall.

Many of the things you've listed have been and are being done to some individuals in our society completely without their consent. I'm talking about those who are developmentally delayed and in some cases, children. Parents don't require the consent of their children to have a cancerous foot amputated or to be left with strangers when they go away, nor do they require the consent of their mentally handicapped daughter to have a hysterectomy or to be left in an institution. Many young mothers who are unable to care for their children have had them given away. According to your logic, that would mean that since they their consent isn't required in these areas of their lives, no consent is needed for them to be used sexually.

Like I said Pure, I'm not disagreeing with your post, just pointing out that your logic on this point is a bit shaky.

Respectfully
beany

 

[Guest]

...

 

[lark sparrow]

Blessed Be said

"I'm sure I am a rare exception (as I seem to be in many ways). I am a Zoophile. Simply put, that means I love animals. Technically that is supposed to be "NO more, NO less", but I do engage in bestiality (sex with non human animals).

I've never been "forced" to have sex with an animal. Nor have I been "tricked", "persuaded", etc. But, I will admit I love name calling and humiliation within sex. In the past, my man has called me a "dog whore" and I love that name! So, even though I feel I have a deep love for non human animals I can enjoy the "humiliation" aspect of 'role play'. "[end]
=====

Thanks for posting, even after the 'ecks' and 'ews'.

<snipped>

It's always a kick to see those with one kink ("we're not sick, we're just different") say--or imply, as here--to those of another kink, "You're sick." (and of course these two kinks may easily overlap as blessedbe's post shows.).

I'm not sure about the reality, but the fantasy is certainly potent!
(I wonder if any of the "Ew" crowd have ever found Fido turning up in an erotic dream?).

This was another personal question that you also skimmed by yourself.

People answered the initial question honestly and personally. Those who didn't like it and said so are apparently possibly repressed. The one person who liked it and engaged in it was applauded. The majority although they found it distasteful were preaching tolerance and civility in the thread... but they also had personal feelings they put forth which actually allowed the topic to take off.

So, in turn... it's kind of a kick to see someone who offers no personal feelings/experiences to the topic, and yet chooses to come in and name names about who was was naughty and who was nice.

Is this commentary from the sideline? Deeply held personal beliefs? An exercise in debate? Personal feelings masked behind a logical argument? One starts to wonder when anything personal is always conveniently withheld, and it begins to seem a bit holier than thou and clinical. Making notes about the lab rats reacting to stimuli came to mind in this thread. Why is it important to discount the idea that many people feel, and are therefore uncomfortable, that animals cannot give consent? You sound as though you are not only condoning it, but encouraging it. Is that true?

That said, I enjoy your posts, overall, but in this thread, on this charged topic, I believe it comes down strongly to personal beliefs/feelings. I don't know what yours are.

-------------------
Pure said: 8a. Subs' usual distaste for animal sex--and the strangeness of the experience to them--makes it an ideal, if potent, form of domination, discipline or punishment, provided neither the animal or sub are harmed or endangered, and the sub, overall, is in a SSC (consensual) arrangement.
--------------------
Lastly, I hope that the above mention of SSC includes that the submissive has agreed to and has genuine interest in having sex with a real dog. If you are suggesting that this would be a fitting punishment for a submissive, an actual punishment, not consensual play, I think you are way off mark and handing out dangerous counsel. I'd also like to know how much experience you have in this area since you seem to have it all worked out.

 

[Pure]

Dear Pure

[cut]
This part of your argument I will take issue with though Pure, if only to play devil's advocate because I don't necessarily disagree with your what you're saying overall.

Many of the things you've listed have been and are being done to some individuals in our society completely without their consent. I'm talking about those who are developmentally delayed and in some cases, children. Parents don't require the consent of their children to have a cancerous foot amputated or to be left with strangers when they go away, nor do they require the consent of their mentally handicapped daughter to have a hysterectomy or to be left in an institution. Many young mothers who are unable to care for their children have had them given away. According to your logic, that would mean that since they their consent isn't required in these areas of their lives, no consent is needed for them to be used sexually.

Like I said Pure, I'm not disagreeing with your post, just pointing out that your logic on this point is a bit shaky.

Respectfully
beany

Hi beany,

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad you don't "necessarily" disagree, overall. But I'm not quite sure what that means. To respond to your points, above:

1. We don't and shouldn't exploit kids, including sexually.
2. We encourage, besides wellness, self-respect, spiritual aspirations, values clarification, reasonable ambition, and a number of other things.

3. We do 1. and 2.--nurture and protect kids-- because kids are humans, not (just) animals. There is a difference.

If you disagree with the above, you should tell why you think there is, in the case(s) under discussion, NO relevant difference with animals. Tell which of 1,2, and 3 you disagree with and why.

As far as my list of things you might not do--spaying, breeding, ... etc., with ANIMALS.

1. I take it that you do one or more of these things, without the animal's consent.

2. So, in the absence of harm to the animal (or person), it's up to you to explain why--in the absence of harm-- you ignore its consent for some things, but believe it's relevant regarding sex.

 

[Pure]

Hi Lark Sparrow,

Thank you for explaining your views.

There's no reason to limit a thread either to the original question(though I answer it below), or to 'expressing feelings'. Certainly the latter would be and does get pretty dull:

Lesbianism
1. Eww
2. Yay,
3. Eww, yechh
4. Love it!

Etc. Eew,yay,ew,yay, ew,ew,ew. A nice chant if you get off on it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kgboot
[1] Has anyone ever heard of this?? [2]Have you been forced to perform with a canine?? [3]Does the thought of this excite or repulse you?? [4]Have you ever had any sexual relations with a dog?



kgboot
aka "Mr. Bootie"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lark Sparrow:]

Here's the original topic, Pure.

I think you only jumped in after everyone else had disclosed their personal feelings and/or experiences.

Would you like to answer the original question or stay in the land of theory and debate?
=======

To answer: 1. Yes, heard of it, first hand from my mistress.
2. No, never been forced.
3. Feelings: (if "forced" means consensual 'forced' in SSC relationship) mixed feelings, attraction/repulsion. If "forced" means gunpoint forced, feelings negative.
4. No, not done; it's under discussion; she has not commanded it.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity.

Best regards.

 

[lark sparrow]

Thank you

It's much easier to accept your arguments, understanding that you too have mixed feelings and have not participated in this act personally. Even if you believed all your arguments entirely and regularly had sex with dogs, it would still illuminate the nature of your posts and their reasoning.

Re: beany's post in reply to your argument. I can tell you where my brain went with it. Kids, mentally handicapped adults and animals are all protected under law from sexual "abuse" - why? Because as a social majority it is assumed that they are not in a position to consent for various reasons and it's found repugnant and manipulative and possibly harmful. We protect and care for those we feel cannot makes their own choices. Still, some people will continue to have sex with kids and animals - either through a compulsion they cannot control, or through a rationalized choice. Most would agree that having sex with a child and having sex with a dog are vastly different, but that was one of the threads I followed in beany's post personally. There are cultures and groups of people within our own culture who feel that having sex with children is indeed a consensual, loving relationship and that they are unfairly persecuted and misunderstood. How extreme do you want to get in your arguments?

Do I feel so strongly against the absolute inability of an animal to give consent that I personally would hunt down those who don't care or feel differently? No. I also don't think that someone engaging in this act would be utterly remiss in considering whether or not the dog is comfortable, interested and a willing participant. On a strictly personal note, it seems rather pathetic to have to spread peanut butter on your genitals in hopes that you can manipulate the animal into inadvertently pleasuring you sexually. YMMV.

I draw the hard line for myself, and my animals, and I think it's reasonable to bring up concern for the animal in any conversation about animal/human sex. I wouldn't be involved with a BDSM partner who expected it as a threatened or accepted act, and if anyone took it upon themselves to punish me in this way I would have them prosecuted to the full extent of the law - Dominant or not.

Fantasies and theories are great - tolerance has to go both ways, and on a subject like this I think a grounding in what one would do in reality, and how one really feels personally are valid. People are allowed to think dog sex is icky. If you feel a dog is a reasonable sex toy, then have it, but by all means take care of your "toy" and use reasonable safety and concern for "it".

 

[MasterKensbeany]

Pure

Where we agree is, that it is not my place or anyone else's place to pass judgement on others for their form of kink within certain limits...age, consent etc.

because kids are humans, not (just) animals. There is a difference.

Its your argument about parallel consent that I find flawed, that if we do other things to animals without their consent, its ok to use them sexually without their consent. From your last post I can see this comes from a belief that animals are somehow lesser beings than humans. This is a belief that I personally don't share. In my opinion, for myself and myself alone, humans are just another form of animal and the only difference is that we (debatably) are the only form of animal having the ability to make conscious decisions about our behavior based on reason, ethics and values. This ability, in my opinion, brings great responsibility where it concerns other forms of life in our care.

So, for myself, I would never use an animal to satisfy my own sexual needs. I feel it would be a betrayal of my responsibility as their caretaker. If others are comfortable with doing so, as long as no harm is done, that's a matter for their own conscience.

Respectfully
beany

 

[Guest]

...I am not condeming those who use animals for sex as long as the animals aren't harmed in any way.

Not that I was mentioned here, but I am going to state once again that Zoophiles do not "use" animals for sex. Hell, some Zoophiles don't even engage in bestiality. Many people don't realize that.

As for those who may not like this topic, just like anything else at Lit, don't open the thread if you don't like the topic. Or, after you've voiced your "eww" to Kgboot's original question, don't come back if this topic grosses you out. Obviously you won't be happy to read on.

 

[MasterKensbeany]

Blessed Be

Any person who engages in sex with an animal, unless that animal came up and asked them for it, is using it for their own sexual purposes. Just like hunters use their dogs for hunting and the blind use their seeing eye dogs, those who have sex with animals are using those animals for sex.

You can call yourself anything you like, you can rationalize it all you want but, unless that great dane offers to buy you a drink and then asks you over to his place for a quick shag, you're using him for your own sexual purposes.

Respectfully
beany

 

[luvsubbbbb]

to add a bit to conversation

i havent met very many people from this thread.....i remember interacting with lark sparrow on another thread regarding slavery.....and i know Mr. Bootie ::smiles::

i have read Mr. Booties thread with great interest as i have long been asked by prospective Female Dominants about my hard limits, and i have always wondered if i should included animals as it is the "right" thing to say.

my estranged family has a female standard poodle, and occassionally i take her for the weekend. i do not have any interest in engaging in sexual play with her, but i must admit that i love cuddling her when we sleep (usually in my bed).

i will not judge others when i hear they enjoy engaging in sexual activities with their pets.

i would just like to add/emphasize that i DONT think it is a matter of just consent, but that with animal sex an animal is being used for the pleasure of a human being .....so the human has a conflict of interest...isnt just caring for the animal but using it for ones own pleasure....the same thing as a child.....only with a child it is frowned upon MORE as the childs mental capacity WILL grow so conditioning before the mental capacity to make decisions are there is considered abusive.....

with animals, this ability will NEVER be there.......so one who engages in bestiality COULD argue that he/she is just enhancing the animals quality of life by providing sexual experiences it would never otherwise have

a dog, all its life is trained to please its Master.......so....why should sexual issues be different?

well.....one of the reasons is religious.....as procreation is NOT possible between human and dog......and a main reason why religion encourages sex is for procreation purposes.....

another is the large difference in intellectual capacity...so... overpowering a strong (by dog standards) dog by a superior human mind may be difficult and regarded as abusive in regards to the dog.

well...i think that about covers it......i would appreciate peoples feedback......thank you......

 

[bunny bondage]

alright, that fucking does it. this is a thread about fucking dogs. how has it gone on for five pages? suffice it to say that when opinions differ on this issue they differ greatly. now leave fluffly alone and post somewhere else!

 

[Pure]

Hi Beany,

You make some interesting points.

Beany:
Blessed Be

Any person who engages in sex with an animal, unless that animal came up and asked them for it, is using it for their own sexual purposes. Just like hunters use their dogs for hunting and the blind use their seeing eye dogs, those who have sex with animals are using those animals for sex.

You can't a make a solid argument by choosing a word. Example:
Is premarital sex wrong? "Yes, it's a man using the woman for sexual gratification."

To put it differently, you equivocate regarding "use."
Above, you say sex with a dog is "using" it just as a blind person does. Clearly that's a very innocuous sense of 'use'. As in "I use my dog to fetch the paper." This sense is not at issue.

The gist of your earlier postings is that sexual connections would be 'using' the animal in a bad, objectionable way. As in "The vicious fellow used his dog as a target for his stone throwing."

The question at issue is, WHICH uses are objectionable uses? And why?

Presumably you have no issue (do you?) with:

[Good, humane and normal uses]

Using the dog to fetch a paper
Using the dog to guide the blind
Using the dog to herd sheep
Using the dog to fight off wolves
Using the dog for warmth, lying next to one, camping.
Using the dog (well cared for) to pull a sled.

Some of these 'uses' of course would be objectionable, applied to a human companion.

So what you must do, without any attempt at 'word magic' or equivocation is establish why sensual/sexual gratification (that is non-harmful) does NOT belong on the above list.

If you accept the list as allowable, you might note that none of the activities is based on 'consent'. Speaking about the dog's consent to guide or herd is simply non-sense, imo.

BUT assuming it is meaningful (as you seem to maintain) the alleged fact that the dog doesn't 'consent' to these things does not, in the least, indicate that any of them are wrong (in the absence of harm to the dog). In simple terms, for most people, it's acceptable to 'use' an animal like a dog, without its consent, in certain humane ways (as listed above).








.

 

[SierraMoon]

Not that I was mentioned here, but I am going to state once again that Zoophiles do not "use" animals for sex. Hell, some Zoophiles don't even engage in bestiality. Many people don't realize that.

As for those who may not like this topic, just like anything else at Lit, don't open the thread if you don't like the topic. Or, after you've voiced your "eww" to Kgboot's original question, don't come back if this topic grosses you out. Obviously you won't be happy to read on.

BlessedBe, may i respectfully ask a question?

What is the difference between Zoophilia and Bestiality? i'm honestly curious about this, and would appreciate your response.

Thank you in advance!

 

[lark sparrow]

Re: to add a bit to conversation

a dog, all its life is trained to please its Master.......so....why should sexual issues be different?

I enjoyed your points, luvsubbbbb.

One of the things I thought of in regard to this question is that dogs are sometimes trained in harmful ways - such as dog fighting. In this case, many of us would take the perspective that the owner did not have a right to train, encourage or use their dog in this way. Another illegal act.

Teaching your dog that it is allowed to copulate with humans may lead to a dog that no longer respects, and becomes unruly and challenging within, the pecking order. Just as teaching your dog that trying to kill other dogs is acceptable may also lead to an unpredictable and unsocialized dog - perhaps even leading to their destruction, when they become too much to handle, an accident occurs or they are no longer useful in the ways they have been trained/molded. These dogs don't have much hope of being re-socialized after this training has become second nature.

Let's go one step further. Beyond the ability of animals to consent and enjoy, as well as owners having the freedom to train and use animals as they wish.

Do you think dogs have enough reasoning to decide who they can or cannot have sex with once accustomed to sexual relations with people?

Would it be a danger to own a dog that must be watched constantly, say around a child, because the dog may try to have sex with and actually be able to overpower a small human being?

 

[MasterKensbeany]

You can't a make a solid argument by choosing a word. Example: Example: Is premarital sex wrong? "Yes, it's a man using the woman for sexual gratification

This one made me laugh, it sounds like my sister. She's always asking why I let men use me for sex. I would hope that both parties in your example are getting some sexual gratification out of it.

The gist of your earlier postings is that sexual connections would be 'using' the animal in a bad, objectionable way. As in "The vicious fellow used his dog as a target for his stone throwing."

HUH??? Pure, this sounds like you're projecting. I never once said that I thought using animals for sex was either objectionable or bad. Quite the opposite, I've stated unequivocally that it is not my place to make such judgements about others.

I took issue with Blessed Be's assertion that she is not "using" the animals she has sex with. I can't imagine what else she could call it.

People everyday, all over the world use animals in ways too numerous to mention. Its the nature of our relationship with animals. I personally use my dogs for love, comfort and companionship (and occasionally to warm my toes on cold nights). None of them knocked on my door and asked me to take them in, I did so out of a selfish need for the unconditional love and warmth they give me. In return, I've tried to give them the best lives possible and I think they've been happy with me. I will not use my dogs as sex toys, that's my own personal line.

Your line may be different, Blessed Be's line may be different, that's up to you to decide. Just don't try to tell me that its something other than what it is.

Respectfully
beany