'Man'imal- Where to draw the line?

[ownedsubgal]

Absolutely. Not so much that I'll die unhappy about lack of follow through, but...a dog that made me think "you know, IF I was going to fuck a dog...."

there was this blue Great Dane in a local establishment. The ultimate store dog, completely mellow, extremely intimidating, silent. The thing was huge, stood up to my hip at mid-back. And he would just walk up to people and stare -through- you. As if to say "inside me is trapped a man's spirit, and the man stuck in this dog is soulful, intelligent and very very fucking hot."

He'd stare *through* you, almost as if to say "pet me if it makes you feel superior, go on, I'll just stand here. No? Thanks, I appreciate your preservation of my dignity."

And he wasn't snippped. Huge fucking dog balls. Made me kind of uncomfortable, he did.

hehe...dog balls. a neighbor of ours a couple of years ago had this pit bull/boxer mix, he was beautiful, golden eyes and golden coat, really freakishly strong muscular body, huge head. he was vicious to most people outside of his family (that's how they trained him), but for some reason always a sweetheart to me. he liked to rear up on his hind legs, lean against me and knock me down. or when he was chained up, circle me when i wasn't paying attention so that'd i'd trip and fall, then stand over me with his foot on my chest and balls in my face. no barking, ever. just staring at me like he knew all of my secrets and perverse thoughts and sizing me up, kinda like "hmmm yeah go on and pet me and give me treats right now, but one day i'll make you my b*tch." lol. oftentimes when i would pay him a visit he'd instantly get aroused, and i remember how surprisingly huge, wet, veiny and kinda appealing his doggie equipment was. definitely way nicer than many humanoid cocks i've come across.

 

[faeriefire]

[URL="http://www.riverfronttimes.com/1999-12-15/news/all-opposed-say-neigh/full[/URL]

I just googled zoophilia and it brought up a bunch of subscription sites. But wikipedia has a ton of info for the curious and the article above was thought provoking.

It takes a fairly jovial tone and was written back in 1999, but I thought this quote was worth exploring: "But this is not just about the animals," Rilenge says. "This is a social issue. Frequently the abuse of animals is linked to the abuse of women and children later on, whether that be cruelty to animals in a sexual nature or just neglect. It's almost unusual when a violent offender has not first had experiences with animals." The article takes an 'us vs them' perspective, and I'm willing to bet most of us on lit would fall into the 'them' category. So what makes zoophilia so different? Now I'm all confused *scratches head* and perplexed *eyes crossed* and I think if a doberman or rottweiler headed my way I'd run like the gingerbread man Anyone who's been attacked by a dog before should be able to empathize...it ain't pretty and the scars last whether skin was broken or not.

 

[Netzach]

This does beg the question, as Caitlynne brought up, "is it BDSM?"

No.

To me "anything I may possibly have to consider in the scope of my D/s or M/s relationship" is not especially BDSM, because the whole universe of possibility then has to be absorbed into this community.

It's a sidenote. When someone posts "ENEMAS" we often see it moved or snide "and what does THAT have to do with BDSM?" comments.

But someone posts "ANIMALS" and we get this debate again.

 

[intothewoods]

The problem as I see it is that this is SO taboo that no one is even thinking about ways to minimize risk doing it. So you'll have all kinds of injuries, disease, and accidents with people doing it the stupid way.

My first reaction to reading this post was, yeah THAT'S the problem, but after reading the rest of the thread, I think you're right. My reaction (and others) isn't just ooh, too taboo, red red ick, but by a real offense at the lack of respect for other creatures.

 

[Netzach]

My first reaction to reading this post was, yeah THAT'S the problem, but after reading the rest of the thread, I think you're right. My reaction (and others) isn't just ooh, too taboo, red red ick, but by a real offense at the lack of respect for other creatures.

It's kind of like, well, what about teasing animals? We'll probably all be horrified and indignant, but taunting animals is definitely less wrong than eating them, one would think. It's not like they consent, but it's not like it matters or they care. What if my Top wanted me to tie a can to a dog's tail who was generally pretty good natured and I could catch up with him?

We generally don't tease animals purely because we're soft hearted in our reptile base-brains, but because *tigers will motherfuckin' EAT you* there are reasons and not all of them are prudish.

Sex with an animal, while it may feel good, does violate that animal's norms. You don't see giraffes humping rhinos, do you? We're the only species that could rationalize this kind of thing.

 

[JamieB]

Just speaking for myself, that is not an underlying assumption for me.



Funny, but no. It's part of a broader philosophy on my part about human's responsibility to animals. JMo touched on it, and maybe without that explanaion, my comments are lost. Because no, I'm not planning on starting a support group for dog rape victims.

I love the sneer which some posters do not bother to hide. Oh, lowly un-evolved bdsm amateur.

If anyone's an amateur here, it's me. And if I sounded sneery, it's not because of any imagined BDSM hierarchy with myself at the top (oh what a world THAT would be). I'm a second generation collapsed catholic, and projected morality is rather a hot button for me. I apologize if it came off as a personal attack...that wasn't my aim at all. I've read enough posts of yours to respect what you have to say, and you defended your incorrect position very eloquently and clearly .

Also let me be clear that I have great compassion for the suffering of animals (humans included) which I admit is utterly at odds with my diet and clothing tastes. I just don't include sexual acts in that category. I don't believe the emotional makeup of a dog is complex enough to be damaged by sex with people. A dog can be emotionally damaged by ongoing systematic abuse and/or the cultivation of fear and aggression, but not by sex in and of itself.

I firmly believe animals have a much less loaded view of sex than people do. They don't overthink it and wrap it up in morality and taboo and make it a huge mess, because they can't. Animals have feelings, yes they do, but they are not complex enough to be injured by any act of sex, however depraved and immoral and soul-corrupting a human being might see it to be. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

J

 

[intothewoods]

It's kind of like, well, what about teasing animals? We'll probably all be horrified and indignant, but taunting animals is definitely less wrong than eating them, one would think. It's not like they consent, but it's not like it matters or they care. What if my Top wanted me to tie a can to a dog's tail who was generally pretty good natured and I could catch up with him?

We generally don't tease animals purely because we're soft hearted in our reptile base-brains, but because *tigers will motherfuckin' EAT you* there are reasons and not all of them are prudish.

Sex with an animal, while it may feel good, does violate that animal's norms. You don't see giraffes humping rhinos, do you? We're the only species that could rationalize this kind of thing.

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of teasing as to whether they care. I was imagining kids torturing animals, and I do not put up with that at all. And I am working my way back to vegetarian lately actually. I used to go all organic and free-range, but there are many reasons why I'm going more veggie. And just eating less. I mean, in a way, the flip whatever, it's just a dog, go ahead and fuck him, offends me for the same reason the wasteful big portions of American meat offend me. I come at it from that perspective more than let's start a counseling clinic for doggie rape victims.

This is all reminding me of the Hermione society for elves, wasn't it?

 

[twysted73]

I think that if I had a fine purebred hound or something, I would occasionally arrange for it to fuck a human female, to keep it fierce.

This is why I don't have dogs.

This line Marquis...she is a beautiful one, no?

 

[Netzach]

I firmly believe animals have a much less loaded view of sex than people do. They don't overthink it and wrap it up in morality and taboo and make it a huge mess, because they can't. Animals have feelings, yes they do, but they are not complex enough to be injured by any act of sex, however depraved and immoral and soul-corrupting a human being might see it to be. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

J

This involves almost as much, nah, maybe even JUST as much projection as "well it can't consent"

you can't know what an animal is thinking because they are hard to interview. And our attempts and understanding their behavior tend to be biased and sketchy. Comparing a dog fucking a dog to a dog fucking or being fucked by a human is projection.

I'm not bothered by the fact that I KNOW the animals don't like it and won't be behaviorally made messed up and more dangerous by it ('cause I don't), I'm bothered by the fact that I just don't know they won't and neither does anyone else with anything like certainty.

'Cause this is one study that I can *guarantee* is not going to be seeing funding any time soon, eh?

 

[intothewoods]

If anyone's an amateur here, it's me. And if I sounded sneery, it's not because of any imagined BDSM hierarchy with myself at the top (oh what a world THAT would be). I'm a second generation collapsed catholic, and projected morality is rather a hot button for me. I apologize if it came off as a personal attack...that wasn't my aim at all. I've read enough posts of yours to respect what you have to say, and you defended your incorrect position very eloquently and clearly .

Also let me be clear that I have great compassion for the suffering of animals (humans included) which I admit is utterly at odds with my diet and clothing tastes. I just don't include sexual acts in that category. I don't believe the emotional makeup of a dog is complex enough to be damaged by sex with people. A dog can be emotionally damaged by ongoing systematic abuse and/or the cultivation of fear and aggression, but not by sex in and of itself.

I firmly believe animals have a much less loaded view of sex than people do. They don't overthink it and wrap it up in morality and taboo and make it a huge mess, because they can't. Animals have feelings, yes they do, but they are not complex enough to be injured by any act of sex, however depraved and immoral and soul-corrupting a human being might see it to be. On that we will have to agree to disagree.

J

I agree with Netz's response, so I won't add to it. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your point of view, and you didn't come off as sneery. I also didn't think it was a personal attack at all - I just wanted to make sure the argument on the other side wasn't reduced to, oh no, doggies need counseling!

 

[JamieB]

you can't know what an animal is thinking because they are hard to interview. And our attempts and understanding their behavior tend to be biased and sketchy. Comparing a dog fucking a dog to a dog fucking or being fucked by a human is projection.

I'm not bothered by the fact that I KNOW the animals don't like it and won't be behaviorally made messed up and more dangerous by it ('cause I don't), I'm bothered by the fact that I just don't know they won't and neither does anyone else with anything like certainty.

'Cause this is one study that I can *guarantee* is not going to be seeing funding any time soon, eh?

Touche'

J

 

[twysted73]

It may seem as if you have three camps here. Those who like it, those who don't and those who really could take or leave it (or even care less).
Those who oppose will not agree with those that are in accordance and vice versa.
For those on the midline, bravo for duality and seperation from said subject.

It draws us because it is yet another opportunity to be taken from our daily responsabilities of decorum and social responsability to think and act within a set amount of limitations.

It's why we do things we're not supposed to do in the first place. Human nature. And we love our escapes. Our hidden and secreted vices.
In our heads using our bodies as the vehicle.
For some nay sayers it's not possible to let go as completely inorder to allow said subject to transport them to that place of self-serving distraction.

For others that's not the mode of transportatin they feel will be the button to press to enable that relocation of mind to id for whatever reason they see fit to offer in explination. That the residual recollection is more then their non-distracted minds can live and be comfortable with during their more lucid moments having experienced it in their lesser ones. (guilt can be such pain as well as such a blessing)

It all comes down to what can our fragile minds handle the morning after.
Given enough inner need for escape, the human psyche can justify just about anything.

Hey Catalina, not bad for a thread that was supposed to flop, eh? *pokes you teasingly*
And you being one of the most ardent contributors! I adore enlightened and intellectual human interraction.
"ain't nuthin better then tasty tidbits we ain't supposed to have but CAn if we sneak 'em"


*squeezes arm...pokes chest* Being a "guru" doesn't feel any different.

 

[intothewoods]

It may seem as if you have three camps here. Those who like it, those who don't and those who really could take or leave it (or even care less).
Those who oppose will not agree with those that are in accordance and vice versa.
For those on the midline, bravo for duality and seperation from said subject.

It draws us because it is yet another opportunity to be taken from our daily responsabilities of decorum and social responsability to think and act within a set amount of limitations.

It's why we do things we're not supposed to do in the first place. Human nature. And we love our escapes. Our hidden and secreted vices.
In our heads using our bodies as the vehicle.
For some nay sayers it's not possible to let go as completely inorder to allow said subject to transport them to that place of self-serving distraction.

For others that's not the mode of transportatin they feel will be the button to press to enable that relocation of mind to id for whatever reason they see fit to offer in explination. That the residual recollection is more then their non-distracted minds can live and be comfortable with during their more lucid moments having experienced it in their lesser ones. (guilt can be such pain as well as such a blessing)

It all comes down to what can our fragile minds handle the morning after.
Given enough inner need for escape, the human psyche can justify just about anything.

Hey Catalina, not bad for a thread that was supposed to flop, eh? *pokes you teasingly*
And you being one of the most ardent contributors! I adore enlightened and intellectual human interraction.
"ain't nuthin better then tasty tidbits we ain't supposed to have but CAn if we sneak 'em"


*squeezes arm...pokes chest* Being a "guru" doesn't feel any different.

This conversation, and this post specifically make me think about the distinction between fantasy and reality. It brings up questions for me that I think about often.

What role does fantasy play in our lives? How much of your life do you want to spend living out your fantasies? If you could spend your every waking minute living your fantasy, would you? And another: should a person ever question their fantasies?

 

[twysted73]

This conversation, and this post specifically make me think about the distinction between fantasy and reality. It brings up questions for me that I think about often.

What role does fantasy play in our lives? How much of your life do you want to spend living out your fantasies? If you could spend your every waking minute living your fantasy, would you? And another: should a person ever question their fantasies?

Questioning them only when acting them out ruins our lives or ruins the life of another.
Living in constant ANything is a bummer. I'd need the normality to give the abnormality flavor my dear.
"Can't have every day be Christmas" right?
As for what role it plays? It's the carrot before the donkey for us. We'd not get up in the morning if we didn't have them. Even goals....are fantasies unrealized.

*damn..maybe this guru stuff IS working. Feeling all..Kung-Fu, walk the earth today*

 

[HottieMama]

Pure fantasy here but wouldn't you harbour just a tiny bit of fear if you fell pregnant shortly after being fucked by the family pet?

Forgive me if someone already said this...but cross-species impregnation is a biologically impossibility.

 

[intothewoods]

Questioning them only when acting them out ruins our lives or ruins the life of another.
Living in constant ANything is a bummer. I'd need the normality to give the abnormality flavor my dear.
"Can't have every day be Christmas" right?
As for what role it plays? It's the carrot before the donkey for us. We'd not get up in the morning if we didn't have them. Even goals....are fantasies unrealized.

*damn..maybe this guru stuff IS working. Feeling all..Kung-Fu, walk the earth today*

I wasn't envisioning standing next to a scene and wagging your finger.

But seriously - the question is often asked for profiles as part of my local group's big events. What is your fantasy? Sometimes people reply, I'm living it! Of course, that's somewhat tongue in cheek. I don't expect they are actually in an orgy all day long. But still...the difference in the amounts of time various people spend pushing their limits, playing at the edge, whatever, is striking. Part of it is just life and finances, but part of it is personality, and needs and wants. I find thining about those questions interesting, and I don't mean it in a I-have-all-the-answers-just-tricking-you sorta way.

Forgive me if someone already said this...but cross-species impregnation is a biologically impossibility.

I don't think anyone said it.

 

[SweetGigi]

Forgive me if someone already said this...but cross-species impregnation is a biologically impossibility.

I don't think that is how she meant it. The way I took her comment was that it would be a bit of an "ohfuckwhatthecockmygodohshitohshitohshit" if she happened to be pregnant by a human close to or after fucking the animal. It would be a bit of a mindfuck for a second is what I think she meant.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Forgive me if someone already said this...but cross-species impregnation is a biologically impossibility.

Actually it isn't biologically impossible and there have been several that have, though so far not between humans and other animal species though I read last year that scientists are working on that being possible. Usually when cross species impregnation takes place it either results in natural abortion, sterility in male offspring (such as mules which are a cross between donkeys and horses), or halved egg production abilities in female offspring. There are also other areas which are impeded in the offspring which make it less able to compete with the purity of a pure bred. Scientists are also expermenting with cross breeding other species in the interests of increasing resistance to particular diseases that may be a common problem with one of the species in it's pure form.

Catalina

 

[SirLeo]

Cross Species

It's kind of like, well, what about teasing animals? We'll probably all be horrified and indignant, but taunting animals is definitely less wrong than eating them, one would think. It's not like they consent, but it's not like it matters or they care. What if my Top wanted me to tie a can to a dog's tail who was generally pretty good natured and I could catch up with him?

We generally don't tease animals purely because we're soft hearted in our reptile base-brains, but because *tigers will motherfuckin' EAT you* there are reasons and not all of them are prudish.

Sex with an animal, while it may feel good, does violate that animal's norms. You don't see giraffes humping rhinos, do you? We're the only species that could rationalize this kind of thing.

Actually, many species will hump another species. Its usually a form of showing dominance.

 

[BiBunny]

I find it interesting that the major oppositions to this are either that humans are supposed to be responsible for poor little Pook'ums, or that Pook'ums, in his natural state, is far more responsible for himself than we could ever be.

Which is it?

 

[FurryFury]

To me one of the more interesting aspects of this fantasy are the different shapes, sizes and amounts of ejaculation by animals that are not human. Another is the pure sensation differentiations from different "skin" (fur types, scales, feathers) or how different riding various animals can be.

I've ridden horses, elephants and camels. I can only imagine how different other animals might be much less, if sex were involved.

OTOH, I would never eat or tease an animal but yes, I do wear leather.

 

[intothewoods]

It seems to be more an issue of respect rather than responsibility. And there has been that conflict in describing animals on the other side as well.

 

[FurryFury]

If animals were actually given a choice, very few of them would have anything to do with human beings. Horny stallions wouldn't hump water buckets; they'd be free to fuck mares instead.

Animals suffer for human entertainment all over the world, every day. Rabbits bred and raised in cages to amuse toddlers. Dolphins trapped and trained to make audiences oooh & ahhh, while lining the pockets of Sea World's corporate parent. Etc.

None of this is ethically sound, in my opinion. But I do find it darkly amusing, in a very wry sort of a way, that society draws a line at sexual contact. The idea that peanut butter on pink bits to entice a cat is taboo, but caging a bird meant for the rain forest canopy is somehow okay. On the spectrum of fucked-up human reasoning, that ranks near the top.

I LOVE this post JM!

 

[BiBunny]

I admit that I don't get it. Maybe it's just the country bumpkin in me who's not accustomed to these kinds of thinking. I don't know. All I do know is that animals in the wild aren't going to all hold hands and sing kumbaya. I sort of resent the implications made about those of us who don't anthropomorphize to some huge degree, but, again, I didn't grow up that way, so I guess that's why it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Netzach]

Actually, many species will hump another species. Its usually a form of showing dominance.

I am not talking about donkeys and horses, or various kinds of birds although are there in fact wild mules or is that a human intervention? I actually asked someone this over lunch in curiosity - when wild burros and wild mustangs encounter one another do they go at it, or not?

I don't think you'll see lizards doing it with birds.

I'm not a huge "laws of nature" person, but I insist that my problems with it have more to do with logic, a healthy fear for that which humans don't fully understand and claws and teeth I don't have - not just some knee jerk sexual hangup that makes me not lie down in front of Big Blue from a few posts back and go at it.