Dog sex in a bdsm relationship.

[P. B. Walker]

Yanno, I've begged in a couple of different positions.

My my, what talent Have you mastered the "doggy" position? <grin>

PBW

 

[Desdemona]

My my, what talent Have you mastered the "doggy" position? <grin>

PBW

WOOF WOOF

 

[P. B. Walker]

WOOF WOOF

<---- thinking naughty doggy thoughts...


PBW "Oppps... this doggy got caught on the bed again... LOL"

 

[Desdemona]

<---- thinking naughty doggy thoughts...


PBW "Oppps... this doggy got caught on the bed again... LOL"

At my house, the doggy is allowed on the bed sometimes.

 

[lark sparrow]

No eww, just a whimper and a wagging "tail"!

Loves doggy position - definitely something I can get behind... err wait... in front of... hmm, either way works for me.

 

[Pure]

Well, PBS, first the 'woof', then the 'purring' now this:


PBW:
<---- thinking naughty doggy thoughts...


PBW "Oppps... this doggy got caught on the bed again... LOL
=======

I'd be careful PBW. Remember Lark S is on record in this thread:


All of my pets are spayed or neutered,

...sumthin' about them not being responsible or sumthin' ;-)

yeh.

 

[lark sparrow]

Well, PBS, first the 'woof', then the 'purring' now this:


PBW:
<---- thinking naughty doggy thoughts...


PBW "Oppps... this doggy got caught on the bed again... LOL
=======

I'd be careful PBW. Remember Lark S is on record in this thread:


All of my pets are spayed or neutered,

...sumthin' about them not being responsible or sumthin' ;-)

yeh.

Giggles... good thing I'm not a Domme. (I only play one in my arguments )

 

[lorddragonwolf]

Yanno, I've begged in a couple of different positions.

and could one of those been when you were all tied up?

 

[Desdemona]

and could one of those been when you were all tied up?

Yep. That's as good a time to beg as any.

 

[Guest]

Funny, I didn't know 25 year olds were kids. Ignorance really is a bliss with some.

And, with that, I am done with the "Domme" who thinks she's hot shit. [/QUOTE

Believe it or not, 25 yr olds can definitely be 'kids', it just depends on the person. You may or may not be, I don't know you so I have no opinion one way or the other


A 48 yr old

 

[FatSlut]

doggy love

been there, done it, loved it!

i find it strange that people who claim to be so revolted and disgusted by the idea choose to read and post in a thread entitled "dog sex in a bdsm relationship" !

live and let live!

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

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"

I'm inspired to quote the great Samuel Jackson, who said "That is some repugnant shit!"

 

[Guest]

So, why were you "inspired" to bring up an old thread that some have stated they wished would vanish?

 

[Never]

Because he wanted to and he can.

I have been wishing the endless threads would vanish from the GB for over a year now. However, if people also wish to post to them I do not see why my wish should override theirs.

 

[Lili]

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've only read as far as this post so far, but I have to put in my two cents worth.

I laughed at this comment because several years ago, my then-husband (who is a zoophile who is mainly interested in horses, but also dogs) found out that I was interested in D/s. His exact words to me, "That's just sick."

I guess blowing a stallion isn't 'sick', but just an ordinary day for him.

BTW, Cirrus, I congratulate you on standing up for yourself. I'm surprised more zoophiles haven't posted, but I suppose it is still illegal in some places, so maybe they don't want to 'out' themselves.

Lili

 

[Never]

People are very odd when it comes to what's icky and what's not.

 

[UCE]

It's really hot to me, as a fantasy I would like to fulfill (as opposed to the ones I want to keep as fantasies) because it fits right into my love of sexual humiliation. What could be more degrading for a human woman than being forced to mate with a male dog dog? For the experience to be good for me, I'd have to be forced to do some really gross things with the dog (like be peed on by it or have to rim it/lick it's balls as well as give it regular oral) and I'd have to be tied up for the mating so I couldn't escape it if I got cold feet at the last minute.

I know a small group of people on yahoo who are into both bdsm and beast, but the funny thing is that they do not combine the two together. Their animal sex desires are vanilla, lol. This might be because a lot of them are lesibian and the dog cock is a very pleasant substitute for the man that they do not want.

There are lots of potential problems with dog sex, most of them having to do with disease transmittal and a few of them having to do with unexpected things the dog might do (like scratch up your back or even bite you during the mating), so for people who are going to do this as the sub, I suggest you do it with somebody who's had prior experience and knows the health risks.

Unda. Crucia. Eximius.

 

[UCE]

Actually, that doesn't change the meaning of what I said, it just implies that dog sex and BDSM are separate perversions. Which is true also. My intent was meerly to say all sexual perversions (anal, dogsex, scat, you-name-it) are being lumped together (along with BDSM activities) under BDSM.


PBW

Picking on PBW again! Actually I wanted to add something to what you said above which I basically agree with: all sexual perversions do tend to get lumped under bdsm by people who only do vanilla. I guess they just figure that if you're into one kind of weird sex, you're into them all.

In my experience, it helps to call most of these perversions "fetishes" because of their narrow focus. BDSM itself I don't see as a fetish because it is not narrow enough but certain activitites that do legitimately fall within it (like spanking) can be called fetishes, especially when they are practiced by people who only do that one thing, only spank, and think the rest of bdsm is sick perverted stuff.

Beast and BDSM don't have to go together, and with most people they do not mix at all, but for me, as least, beast wouldn't work sexually unless a bdsm feature, a desire to humiliate by forcing me to do a dog or other animal--I fancy pigs, wasn't also there. I'd have utterly no sexual interest in animals if you took away the degradation factor. I think it's similar for some other borderline fetishes that touch on bdsm for some people. Take the foot fetish for instance: some guys are pure foot or shoe fetishists. They dont' need anything else besides that body part or object to get off. Other guys need to feel that they are "worshipping at their mistress's feet" or that the shoe came from a dominant man who left it all sweaty and stinky for them for the foot thing to be hot. Take away the bdsm element, the dominant woman or man, and there's nothing left in the foot fetish for them. That's how I am with beasts and with every other one of the dozens of things I fetishize. I can even, just barely, fetishize vanilla sex if I imagine it as rape, lol.

Unda. Crucia. Eximius.

 

[UCE]

But those of us who practice Safe, sane, and consensual don't force anyone to do anything.

You know, if I hung with the kind of crowd you describe above, I'd never ever, EVER reach orgasm...or even think about orgasms, except as this thing I experienced in some vague non-pc dream which I wasn't supposed to have once. Force is all there is to sex...for me, anyway.

Unda. Crucia. Eximius.

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

So, why were you "inspired" to bring up an old thread that some have stated they wished would vanish?

Obviously, for shits and giggles.

I was reading through the old posts and it was there ... duhhhhh!!! I read these threads purely for their entertainment value. I don't really take much, if any, of this stuff seriously. So, while the idea of someone actually fucking a dog sickens me to my soul, responding to a message board thread about it gives me a little chuckle.
Moreover, if "some" have a problem with this thread, then "some" moderator should delete it.

 

[justgem]

.

 

[NemoAlia]

I can totally see what makes the distinction between consent and nonconsent blurry. Justgem, I think you're making an important point about turning our critical focus on ourselves. As we've discussed in other threads, SSC is often just a starting point for novice BDSMers. And even when people do claim to live by the SSC tenets all the time, how are we to know what's really sane? There's certainly no way for any activity to be completely safe. How can we say that "consensual" is any more easily defined?

 

[Pure]

SSC

Just Gem said,
regarding animals involved in sexual activities..... how can the animal consent? they dont have the same thinking process as we humans do. they operate on instinct not thought.

in practicing D/s shouldnt all "partners" have an option to "consent"?

The idea of larger scope is to avoid harm. Sex shouldn't harm anyone--that's the law---and if they're human, that includes kidnapping them, restraining them, raping, etc.. Which are crimes, I presume because humans find them to be so upsetting, i.e., psychologically harmful.

As for our friends the animals, there are laws against cruelty, which is to say, inflicting physical pain and may include terrorizing the poor beast.

That said, I do have wonderful dog (with whom I'm not 'intimate') but [recapping from earlier in the thread],

I took him from the breeder and his mom when he was 8 weeks
(child kidnapping?).

For the convenience of my guests, I had his balls removed by a vet (assault with bodily harm, maiming)?

Somehow I think he might have preferred to get a blow job, from one of the delightful deviants around here.

That's just bestiality, of course; but as the ferally bent UCE said, what would make it DS would be using the act, "forcing" it --in a consensual context--making it a means of exacting submission.

In short, my dog's wishes play second fiddle--his 'consent' is ignored-- though he gets all bones, walks, warm places to sleep, and vet care he needs.

WARNING 1: Do not try this, in online bdsm, at home alone with a pet orangutan!
WARNING 2: The act is illegal in many states. But then again, oral sex with one's spouse is too, in some!!


Cheers!

 

[UCE]

I can totally see what makes the distinction between consent and nonconsent blurry. Justgem, I think you're making an important point about turning our critical focus on ourselves. As we've discussed in other threads, SSC is often just a starting point for novice BDSMers. And even when people do claim to live by the SSC tenets all the time, how are we to know what's really sane? There's certainly no way for any activity to be completely safe. How can we say that "consensual" is any more easily defined?

Over 15 years ago, when I was a "novice" bdsmer" (actually, the term bdsm hadn't been invented yet), I thought this phrase was utterly ridiculous and self-serving. Not all of us used it as a starting point. My master, who's been doing this stuff for 40 years remembers when the phrase became popular. It was first used (as it still is by some today) by very insecure and in some cases emotionally and mentally disturbed individuals who hated the fact that they liked this kind of "mean" sex and didn't trust themselves or their instincts. To justify their use of sadomasochism, to white-wash it, to make it "clean" and as close to normal sex as they could, they invented the pass-phrase "safe, sane, and consensual."

I'm all for the safe part at least in regards to myself. I hate the fact, however, that many very ignorant people in bdsm cite alleged "unsafety" as the reason why I (not them, but I) shouldn't be allowed to do what I like, when actually if one is an expert in knowledge and practice of certain activities, they aren't unsafe at all. Riding in an airplane isn't "totally unsafe" simply because some idiot who just heard about airplanes for the first time yesterday and is a total coward says they are. But so much in bdsm is cited by these same ignoramouses, these same cowards, who happen to hold titles of BDSM Gurus, as "unsafe." Were the phrase "objectively and provably safe," I might be able to accept that part. But as it is used in this community today, it's simply a copout for cowards who don't want others doing what they fear to do (and thus making them look like cowards, lol) so people who are more daring or who know more about what they're doing have to be labeled "bad" i.e. "unsafe."

Many bdsm people, particularly the so-called self-elected "leaders," use the credo "safe, sane, and consensual" to try to control what other individuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms, which is another reason I so totally despise the phrase. Sane is a word that should never have been put in this phrase if anyone had hope that people who are serious thinkers would take it seriously. No one can define sane. Sane by what standards? By the bible of psychiatrists, the DSM? If so, then we're all batty fruitcakes because the DSM still to this day labels sadism and masochism as mental diseases. So, if we're not going to accept the respected authority of the mind experts to define "sane" for us, what authority are we going to accept? The answer is usually "our own." Everybody believes he or she is well-equipped to judge what is sane and what isn't. Except that when you come right down to it, what most unthinking people say is NOT sane is simply the things that they are terrified of or have very personal irrational dislikes of. I've lived very happily in a master-and-slave relationship for 15 years. Totally solid and loving and we work through our problems when we have them, we don't give up. But, acorrding to "Lady Green" a self-apointed bdsm expert whose flatulent outporings are everywhere to be found in kinky bookstoresn and online, my lifestyle of lived non-consent is completely "insane." But since when can succesful and happy lives that hurt nobody and increasingly enrich the two parnters involved be called "insane" by any objective standards? The truth is they can't and Lady Green or Verant or whatever the fuck she calls herself now is simply talking out of her personal fears and prejudices and utter ignorance. She was also really pissed at me at the time because I had questioned some of her stupid generalizations in front of an online audience of thosands and made her look like a fool. So according to Greenie Beanie-hat, anything I said HAD TO BE DEAD WRONG AND THE TALK OF THE DEVIL. But because this stupid old fart is seen by others (I'm talking about the idiot who wrote the bottoming book, btw, in case you've never encountered this mindless horror) a bdsm expert, largely because of her own incessant self-promotion rather than any actual knowledge she possesses, her words are immediately accepted by the SSC crowd as golden truth. And is Miss Self-Promoting Idiot says that absolute power-exchange lifestyles are horrific and "exercable" (her very word) then by golly, baa the sheep who unthinkingly accept the words of such so-called experts, they ARE!

I used a personal example from my own experience to illustrate how the terms of Safe, Sane, and Consensual are ordinarily used in the bdsm world in the most dishonest and self-serving fashion. This was not a one in a million case, this sort of thing is happening all the time in bdsm communities. You're a "community leader" (cough choke barf) and you take a personal disliking to someone? No problem! Just announce to the community that what that person does is wrong, insane, unsafe, nonconsensual and you can get everybody who follows you mindlessly to hate that particular practice, whether there is anything actually wrong with it or not.

And that takes us to consensual. Like sane, this is a word that is so idiotically vague everybody can and does interpret it in their own way. Some say it means that the sub must give consent to every single thing that the dominant demands of her. Sure makes life convenient to have it that way, now you can call your relationship bdsm and reap all the benefits of being cool and exotic, but in terms of power, it functions just like a vanilla relationship. How fucking handy! Other people weild this same subjective interpretation of consent to "prove" that couple in which the consent occurs only once in the realtionship are evil and bad and NON CONSENSUAL, simply because the sub isn't exercising, like the president, absolute veto power over everything the dominant does. A lot of people who call themselves bdsmers have tremendous fear of experiencing anything that smacks of control or power exchange. The idea that they could control another person completely or that they could submit to the control of another absolutely horrifies them, usually because of their own personal hangups or misconceptions about what power really is all about (remember what I said above about non-experts? this particularly applies to power: nobody even seems to know that there is expertise to acuquire in this field!). In other words, such people are emotionally unstable and indeed, ought not to be messing with the core truth of sadomasochism--control or power exchange--at all as they cannot be trusted to deal in this very intellectually and emotionally demanding area. And while I personally despise such things, I even can learn to live and let live that such individuals, rather than honestly admitting their utter incapacity to deal with power, need a lie, a mental crutch known as "consensual" to support their cowardice. I could live with that if that's as far as "consensual" went. But like most very insecure people, the bdsmer's who cannot deal with power exchange could not when this silly phrase was invented and cannot now to this day stop right there and say "for ME to be comfortable things have to be consensual." Nope, that's never enough for the deeply insecure: the only way they're going to feel like what they are doing is RIGHT is if everybody else around them does the same thing! In other words, sheeps need their flocks, need them desperately. BAAAA! So it's a very short hop from there to the old persecution line: "If YOU don't behave like ME then YOU are BAD!" or "If YOU don't practice bdsm consensuality in the way _I_ personally define that term then YOU are BAD! YOU ARE EVIL AND NON-CONSENSUAL! YOU ARE HARMING OTHERS AGAINST THEIR WILLS! WHY? BECAUSE I SAY SO!" And the bdsm opinion leaders do indeed say so, don't they. They certainly seem to have many people her totally brainwashed on this.

The hatred and fear of non-consensuality, the labeling it as 'bad', grew out of an abysmal insecurity and cowardice on the parts of people, who at the same time, demanded that they be respected for their ideas in the community. It's tremdously egotistical, but the thinking goes that if the great and wonderful me whom all these other bdsm sheep resepct can't deal with non-consensual relationships due to my own personal "issues" then hey! Nobody else will be able to manage it either! Therefore anybody who claims to be living in a non-consensual relationship is either a liar or a very evil person who must be ostracized from our community and whose mouth must be silenced by any means possible, and the means WILL ALWAYS justify the ends, when it comes to the important issues of safe, sane, and consensual! THEY MUST BE STOPPED.

As to the means used by other bdsmers to silence others who refuse to preach the party line of safe, sane, and consensual? I'm a bit player in this thing, but I've personally experienced the most vicious rumors and lies started about myself imaginable (the idea being that if you can discredit the speaker with personal slander he or she won't be taken seriously). I've had my writings stolen and rewritten to be more palpable to the SSC community. I and my master have recieved countless, I swear I have lost count over the years, death threats. I have been outed in dozens of places where there were very dangerous people, like lunatics and rapists lurking around. I and my master have been accused of the most vicious and horrendous harm to others, utterly fabricated, not one word of it true.

All of this has happened because I simply won't lie with the rest of the sheep and say that the words "safe, sane, and consensual" are worth more than a rat's anus. (They're worth much less, in fact.) But the bdsm cult, like all cults attracts hundreds of instable individuals, and within this cult, the more emotionally unstable you are, the quicker you seem to rise to positions of power.

(It's funny but I see exactly the same patterns occuring in a much tinier cult that i am observing at the moment: the cult of people who imagine themselves to really be vampires. These people are doing all the same stupid things and creating all the same stupid mythologies and lies and credos to live by about themselves sthat the bdsmers already have done--it's fascinating to watch the similarities between these two very different fringe groups.)

When irrational and sick people are in power, of course, things like banning ideas they are emtionally afraid of facing in themselves and persecuting others who dare to voice such ideas with any influence are par for the course. Such people not only project their personal insanities and phobias onto the groups they are a part of but they also attract to themselves people who are just like them--people with the same emotional illnesses. And so the cult grows increasingly sicker, increasingly more intolerant, increasingly ignorant of the subject areas they are most irrationally terrified of.

That is, in a nutshell, basically why I despise the overall bdsm community and in particular loathe the meaningless term, "Safe, Sane, Consensual."

None of this is aimed at Nemo Alia. I used her quote as a jumping off place for saying what I wanted to say about SSC, is all. It's also a measure of respect toward her that I chose her quote, as there are certain people here who are so egotistical and hysterical (mostly on blessed ignore now, lol) who, if I responded to a quote of theirs in this way, would decide I really hated them and was just out to abuse them and they'd follow me around from thread to thread screaming hysterically at me and how wrong and bad I was no matter how many times I apologized to the screaming idiot and told him over and over again that it WAS NEVER MEANT AS A PRESONAL ATTACK. (Isn't that true, Zipman, my dear male hysteric? Nailed ya, didn't I?)

 

[zipman]

<snip>
None of this is aimed at Nemo Alia. I used her quote as a jumping off place for saying what I wanted to say about SSC, is all. It's also a measure of respect toward her that I chose her quote, as there are certain people here who are so egotistical and hysterical (mostly on blessed ignore now, lol) who, if I responded to a quote of theirs in this way, would decide I really hated them and was just out to abuse them and they'd follow me around from thread to thread screaming hysterically at me and how wrong and bad I was no matter how many times I apologized to the screaming idiot and told him over and over again that it WAS NEVER MEANT AS A PRESONAL ATTACK. (Isn't that true, Zipman, my dear male hysteric? Nailed ya, didn't I?)

Ahhhh, projecting again UCE? What you still don't seem to understand is that while you may not have meant it as a personal attack, it did read that way. But I am more than happy to let bygones be bygones. Unfortunately, you couldn't.

The difference between your post to NemoAlia and the post I calmly objected to in the past are as follows:
1) You made it clear that you were not speaking about her, but about your views on the larger issue.
2) You agreed with her position as opposed to using her post to prove a completely different point.
3) You did not hypothesize on her motivations or behaviors. You kept it to the topic being discussed.


And if you want to accuse others of hysterical posting, these "quotes" of yours from the dissapointments thread say more than I ever could. I did edit out a few parts as they are simply too long.

In other words, UNDA IS TO BLLAAAAME! UNDA IS TO BLAAAAME! Nah-nah!!!! I thought the childish behavior (yes you are behaving childishly in this post and that IS NOT namecalling, it is description) would come out in your soon. Tis Ok, we've all got that locked away inside.

<snip>
Thank you, though, for dropping your false attempt to appear unbiased to me. It's always nicer when people reveal their real, hidden agendas.

Bitterly,
Unda

Or this one from the same thread…

<snip>
I shake my head in disbelief at you, beany. Others around here are stumbling around in the dark, and while their stumblings into me have been irritating, they have not served to shock me, to horrify me in the way that you have tonight. I pray for your poor soul and that you may someday learn that the real secret, that the only thing that matters lies between you and your master, and not anybody else in the outside world.

<snip>
Christ Almighty!! I told my friend who encouraged me to post here that my going on a bdsm forum was for me like entering a den of poisonous vipers! Maybe he now, finally, sees what I am talking about. Plonk, Beany. And GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN! I mean it! Your intentions may or may not be good; your suggestions are diabolical and are killing of everything good in the human spirit.

Big Sigh.

Okay, but only one more from the same thread...

<snip>

You dare to suggest that I BE A BETTER PERSON after the horror of that message you wrote to dream??? LOL OH LUCIFER, your lies are myriad and without end in inventiveness. Honey, right now, you have shown me the blackest heart of anybody on this board. I think you'd better stop trying to climb to that high ground--the shit on your skirt tells us all where you've been. Metaphorically speaking of course,

Night, beany! Make these honest words into whatever fantastical lie you want to, as I know now that you most certainly will. I don't care. I'm bowing out. You get the last word! Tada!

Even though you have me on ignore, I thought some of our newer members who weren't here for your last outburst might enjoy a good laugh