A word from our sponsors...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Ok, this is a question that is bothering me for months now. Since i got online and started visiting zooboards i found posts and threads everywhere from people offering their animals to eveyone who wants to go down with them. I allways found that strange and atleast to me wrong.Please dont get me wrong, i dont want to judge those people! As i said in an other post i would share my love if she/he wants it too! But only with someone which i would know very well and whom i would trust totaly! Up to day there is only one out there!But more then once i read things like: Dog available for shootings! or Trained dog available for sex! or like on an german forum where someone offerd his bitches for money!! To me the love was allways the most importand thing so im maybe seeing everything a bit to seriously. Same thing with all those animals in the movies and clips. I allready got explained that its not that worse as i thought it was but still i feel a bit strange when i see one dog (esp. bitches) apearing in three or more movies allways with different human actors.Again please dont get me wrong, i enjoy watching those clips im just wondering how those people think about their animals. As some of you are around here i would be realy glad if you could take a few seconds to answere.No feel free to bash me to the ground
Well I personally think that sharing your lover is extremely worng. Your lover is not a commodity that you can lend to people for their satisfaction. Love should be sacred whether that love be between a person or an animal. Unfortunately to many people don't share the same feelings for their animals and as a result people will do what they like with disregard to the animal. People will also do whatever they can to get their hands on more money, like pimping a dog (yell at me if you want but that is what it is). I wish that everybody in this world or even just in this forum could see their animal for what they are. A loving being that puts so much trust into you. Always think of how your animal feels before you do anything. If you don't then you are just another animal abuser that should be thrown in jail.
HELL NO !!!! Be like someone sharing their girlfriend with another guy and he has AIDS. You never know whats crawling around out there and in people for that matter. So I feel they should not even ask. Them asking for you to do it, tells me that they are more into beastiality and just want sex and thats it. If they would be true zoos, then they would make plans to have their own animal that they themselves can love and mate with and not screw their brains out and the hell with what the animal feels. The other problem to is, you never really know whos who, or how they treat their animals. You can see in the photo board that mind sure gets abused enough, abused with attention, love and then sex.That would be one other thing I'd like to see the Mods do if they are able to, delete posts from others that ask to screw someone elses animal. That is just wrong, nasty, sick, and abusive. Get your own animal. If you can't afford it, then get a job. If you have one then get two. Get and do what it takes to please yourself and your animal lover. Don't be a sicko or lazy ass and ask someone else to screw their dog, unless that person doesn't do it with the dog in the first place. If so then, build a real great relationship with the animal. You and the animal (s) will be happier and enjoy it even more.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
^^^^^yet another with no comprahensoin of how love worksI met Neju when my mothers dog ran away,, I fell in love the second I saw her,, it is odd how you know some one is your true soule mate and whene they are not,,We hade the perfect relationship,, Loving, passionate, Sensual, trusting,,,I would walk by her side while she grazed in the field, keept her warm when it rained, spent houres combing her,, we did every thing togeather as one. but did not "" own her "" <<despise that term,,. I agree about sharing just for sex,, but in essence you have just insulted me and meney others...,, I have met some one who is allowing me to date theyr mare,, and I hope to find love once again, and the abillity of not having to hide my love towards her is another great benifite,,, when Neju died a large part of me died with her and nothing could ever fill that hole,, but bing able to give the same kind of love & Devotion to another will be a start to heal,, only if She(the Mare) is interstedLife is complex and dynamic,, thats why the weather report is all ways wrong
Allan: Hmm... I have to admit, no i dont know how love works... To me it was allways just a word! But the meaning of it was the sharing of the closness of body and soul. The sharing of pain and pleasure, of good times and bad times - to allways stand together - to care for each other... I have to say that im a very emotional and romantic person! And to everyone else these words might only sound like the babble of another better zoo or another stupid young guy. Maybe im way to serious about the whole issue due my experiencs and past, and maybe this isnt the right place for such an question/debate...I never wanted to insulted anyone, i just want to understand and the only way i can do that is by questioning!Let me be more precise on what i wanted to say in my first post about the sharing thing:I allways concidert my lovers as beings with an own mind, able to decide on their own, to deicde if they want to do something or not.If a fellow zoo would visit me and my mate would show sexuall affection towards him i wouldnt deny both the pleasure. But only if i could be totaly sure that both agree!! I would never lend her/him to no one just for sex and/or money or even for some experimenting...Im very sorry if i have insulted anyone or just misunderstood the whole thing...
Hello. I don't feel that you should have to apolagize for posting any of your personal thoughts or feelings Honeyraptor. We are all different so therefor we all don't have the same thoughts or feelings. If anyone was insulted by my post I don't care. Those are just my interpretations upon the subject and I will not apolagize for posting my personal thoughts or feelings. So if any one has a problem with my post give me your address and I will send you a kleenex.
I did'nt even bother reading the posts in here but of that of my friends.Share? all I can say about that is W t F?!Sharing is ok to a degree but to share your mate for sex or love or both, that is just messed up... you share your mate you are one a beastilist and two heartless...I have much much more to say on this but right now I'm just to messed up from the flu and the T3's and all I will post more on this later...
QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 6 2004, 05:44 AM)Ok, this is a question that is bothering me for months now. Since i got online and started visiting zooboards i found posts and threads everywhere from people offering their animals to eveyone who wants to go down with them. I allways found that strange and atleast to me wrong.Please dont get me wrong, i dont want to judge those people! As i said in an other post i would share my love if she/he wants it too! But only with someone which i would know very well and whom i would trust totaly! Up to day there is only one out there!But more then once i read things like: Dog available for shootings! or Trained dog available for sex! or like on an german forum where someone offerd his bitches for money!! To me the love was allways the most importand thing so im maybe seeing everything a bit to seriously. Same thing with all those animals in the movies and clips. I allready got explained that its not that worse as i thought it was but still i feel a bit strange when i see one dog (esp. bitches) apearing in three or more movies allways with different human actors.Again please dont get me wrong, i enjoy watching those clips im just wondering how those people think about their animals. As some of you are around here i would be realy glad if you could take a few seconds to answere.No feel free to bash me to the ground Honey this was an excellent question.... The question is so mind provoking that I have not even been able to bring myself to answer it... It is ultimately for me the moment of truth..... Deep sighhhhhh....... Simply put I love porn and would not give it up for nothing. Even porn that I find offensive is still worth collecting because I will turn around and share it with someone telling them this is what you dont want to do and why.... I agree whole heartedly with what ...2... has written but to say I support that view is to say I am a hypocrite.... I am a hypocrite because I continue to collect and view all the porn that is being posted on the Movie Swap Shop board and everyone knows those movies are not homemade movies meaning that it is not somone with their own pet..... 99% of those movies are being produced with an actor and someone elses dog or any other animal it happens to be. So for me to continue to support the material is not a true Zoophile.... If you are true then your heart would be a pure as 2's is. Today I learn yet another thing about myself and with this new found knowledge I am sad.... I am a hypocite....and I am only a Zoo when it is convient for me to say I am Zoo
QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 6 2004, 11:46 PM) If a fellow zoo would visit me and my mate would show sexuall affection towards him i wouldnt deny both the pleasure. But only if i could be totaly sure that both agree!! I would never lend her/him to no one just for sex and/or money or even for some experimenting... That is how I feel about this sharing thingy..
---2---: Well you're right i dont need to defend what i said but as Allan said i insulted him and many others i needed to clarify or even explain what i wrote I dont wanted to insult anyone! All i want to do is understand, the whole thread was not ment to blame anyone But thanks for the support! Spirit: Im glad you decided to answer nontheless. I would like to hear the opinions of as many members as possible. Wendy: Well im the same, im a collector. And i allways watched those movies and picture with pleasure. I dont like the idea behind the movies but still i like them. Thats why these questions bothering me for so long...Its hard to accept that some thing we like also look wrong to us... BitchFool: The welth of my mate allways comes first. Glad to see you see it the same way
Honeyraptor, you stated quite clearly in your original post that you were not attempting to insult or pass judgement, only express your opinion and seek that of others. If Allan was insulted after reading that, it was by his own insecurities, not your words. It's his problem to deal with. On the topic, my personal opinion is that it is ethically wrong to decide ANY animal dependant on you for his/ her health and safety should be given over to another human for their sexual enjoyment. One clear and absolute reason: Though you can and should have control over the animal and the influences on their body and mind, you cannot feasibly control another human interacting with that animal. You lose control, you lose the ability to protect and care for your animal. That should NEVER be done except where turning control of the animal over to another human benifits more than threatens the animals health (Vet check-ups/ procedures, etc.)The few minutes enjoyment, if even that, aren't benifit enough to the animal to justify endangering them. You could "know" the other human for years and still never know that in any situation they will not cause harm to your companions, intentionally or unintentionally. Saying you helped so and so get his rocks off is no consolation when doing so caused you to lose a loved one. (And it certianly is just so and so getting his rocks off. A few moments sex doesn't build a relationship)Now, if there are folks "insulted" by my opinion, be insulted. I won't apologise for your inability to tolerate an opinion different than your own.
Dear Honeyraptor,,, It is I who will apoligies to you, for you were not the target of my statmen but rather wolfie was,,, He assumend that it is a perfect devide..... but things are much too complex... There have been some rather good arguments on bolth sides so far,, and your post was a verry good one for such a debate... I too feel as you do about the romance,, I spend houres courting all my lovers/mates and houres more on forplay, we indulge eachothers lust, desire, passion, towrads each other... How wonder full it would be If We could be mates for life ! But there is no hope,, for I can barly survive my self.. I can only offer my mate my truest of love, wether it is for life or one night.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I will and have, but only to people I know well and trust. My dog being male, is always willing and I think it would be selfish to deny him something he would enjoy because of what human society says is right or wrong. Monogamy is not a concept that many animals understand. So yes, I share but very very rarely.
Try touching 'm.Forget about the Rottweilers.Fear me.
Silverwolf: Hmm, i understand what you're saying. I agree and i have to admit that was something i havent thought about... Of course i wouldnt dare to risk his/her welth for anything, not even for getting his/her rocks of as you said. But on the other hand wouldnt it be also risky if i would let my mates mate with another dog?Allan: Apologize accepted I understand your point and i wish i could keep my loves for ever. Sadly that will never happen...Ilikeit: Hard but good point
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
The question is moot in my case. My bitches typically won't allow anyone else to even touch anything in the genital region, let alone go any farther. Which I must say is rather a boost to my ego, I must admit.regards,ecc
Hello everybody,Alot of interesting replys about both sides of sharing. Personally I have had the chance to share my friends(pets) with a few very close friends. I beleive that there is a big difference between a male and female dog. For that mater male and female in gereral. Most male dogs are very willing to be included in most types of play. every friend I share with is somebody I can trust with my own life. almost every friend I shared with wass there first experience and were greatful for me being able to help them out for the first time. Tykesknot
QUOTE (Ilikeit @ Mar 8 2004, 06:33 PM) Try touching 'm.Forget about the Rottweilers.Fear me. LOL The same goes for my cutie,she's very timid (sometimes agressive) towards strangers,but if she gets to know someone she has chosen to like: she always shows her belly for rubbing BTW,your avatar is sooo cute
Well, my own Master has 'shared' me with friends and i'm perfectly happy with that...For me the subject is no more different than with two humans... or are animals unable to consent ? In which case you agree with animal defenders who are against any form of zoophilia and you have nothing to do here ?Aren't you being a hypocrite if you are violently against 'sharing' and yet a zoophile, by disguising jealousy into care ?'Sharing' is like sharing a property, you say ? But aren't you possessive with what may be your mate's will, and therefore treating him/her as property, precisely ? QUOTE (Wolfie @ Mar 6 2004, 08:52 AM) Get your own animal. If you can't afford it, then get a job. If you have one then get two. Now who's treating animals as property ?That, plus you're threatening people, Wolfie...
QUOTE (BitchFool @ Mar 9 2004, 04:50 PM) BTW,your avatar is sooo cute [/color] Thank you.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Hey, hey hey, boys if you cant play nice and respect eachothers opinions, I will close this subject faster than you can spell "zoo lover"!!!So simba and wolfie - both simmer down, and perhaps read thru your replies once or twice BEFORE pushing the "add reply" button.LadyR
I do agree that one shouldn't really share one's lover, though as it has been pointed out, why should one deny the wishes of one's lover, if they want to be shared to someone that one trusts and knows well. Should be pointed out that it should be from all parties involved to agree if the lover is shared.I do agree with Simba, if I read you correctly that, if everyone is ok with it, then go ahead. Sharing my own animals, it'd HAVE to definately be someone that I deeply trust and know, which ain't that many.As for taking the active part in the sharing of someone's lover or animal, (Like I have already said), I won't deny pleasure to an animal if the animal(s) and owners agree to it, and ask/offers.Wendywinks: I agree in the fullest and I am one that collects animalporn very much, and love it almost as much as the real thing, and I have had a roomie that tried to get me from collecting, and It don't work, it only made things even more intense. I know that I support the animalporn industry, even though I don't like it as it does not in my personal opinion is not as good as I maybe would like to have it done.I do believe that a true zoo can do animal pix and videos, as it can be done with good taste, passion and love. I do object to large companies that try and sell IMHO crap, with people who aren't really into the zooscene, and jsut try and do as "well" as they can. The commercial stuff is as you say, usually some "actor/actress" most of the time very inexperienced with animals, and someone's else's animals.
I think i'm just asking what i think are relevant questions .I'm not asking to close anyone's thread or ban anyone.I'm shared and i'm very happy with that. My Master is very protective with me and makes me very happy.
I would never share my rottweiler He's special to me... And I would hate to think of him just being 'used' ... So I guess thats how I feel about it.. |By the way, I'd also like to say, Ilikeit, I love your avatar too!! SO CUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
simba: As i said before i am 'sure' that animals are able to decide, agree, disagree and so on. If my love would alow another human beside me to touch her/him and maybe start something sexuall without any intervention from the other humans side, then it would be ok for me. Because i think if my mate realy wants to do it im not the one to deny it to her, im only the one to protect him/her!As Silverwolf said you can never know what happen! If its sou whos haveing sex with your dog you allways know what you're doing and you can act and react. Someone else might not be able to keep a straight head and do the right thing at the right moment! When my mate would say 'no' there would be no other way to get hands on him/her then over my cold dead body (and i mean that!)I dont see my dogs as my proberty, they are my friends with whom i share my home and life but still its my dutie to protect them from the evil of this world!And i think the world they live in is totaly different then the one we live in. They see it with different eyes then we do, or why do dogs run on the street without fear. But thats going oftopic... I see animals as equal but as i said they are judging their sorounding by other rules then we do.QUOTE Aren't you being a hypocrite if you are violently against 'sharing' and yet a zoophile, by disguising jealousy into care ?Where does zoophilia contains sharing your mate/love/partner with someone else? Of course im jealous sometimes (im not ashamed to admit that) because i dont have the opportunity to have a beautifull fem husky/lab/gsd at my side, or a beautifull male husky/gsd/rottie... But i would never ask another zoo if i could 'try' his mate or if hes willing to 'share' him/her with me.This would be totaly up to the animal and even if he/she would offer her/hisself to me i would hesitate to go down with her/him.Besides that i do see i the same way as tykesknot. My male is more then willing to hump everything and somehow im pretty sure he wouldnt care who it is hes humping The both bitches i encountered in my live were totaly different to him. They only allowed very few people to touch them somewhere else then on their heads or back. I hope that didnt sound to rough, if so im sorry. I dont ment to atack you
There are always going to be several sides to this.....I know of some who do share, very carefully with very close friends, and some who don't. Some people share their wives/husbands also........most don't.I really think it is how individuals discriminate between love and sex. If you do share, be careful!
QUOTE (wolfguy @ Mar 10 2004, 01:32 AM) By the way, I'd also like to say, Ilikeit, I love your avatar too!! SO CUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I always try to get away when I see a Rottweiler-puppy.Those eyes. The way they walk. The way they R convinced the world has been made just for them (which is true, of course). That tiny little tongue that tries to kiss you (strange that two years later, you have to teach them again how to give a big kiss ). The way they steel your socks and are really surprised if you tell 'm socks are not made for that.Love 'm. Allways have. Can't help it.But I'm not ashamed.Not all.
Well, here's my 2 cents.I agree that it is wrong to indiscriminately share a partner but, there are situations where it would be acceptable. I think someone looking for another human partner would naturally look for someone they could share themselves with totally. ie A male with a male dog, looking for another human mate would quite possibly want to have a partner who was a zoo as well. Many of the human couples members have a male dog who is part of their sexual relationship.It really comes down to personal choice, for all concerned. If all parties are happy with the arrangement, then all is cool. If it comes down to forcing, then it's [CENSOR]. Plain and simple.At least that's how I see it.DM
Agree with you Pink_7 that there are those who shares wife/hubbies/ etc, and as long as everyone agrees then it's cool. It should not be forced, but mutual agreement and highly concentual. And should not be used to just to get one's rocks off.
QUOTE (Ilikeit @ Mar 9 2004, 08:54 PM) I always try to get away when I see a Rottweiler-puppy.Those eyes. The way they walk. The way they R convinced the world has been made just for them (which is true, of course). That tiny little tongue that tries to kiss you (strange that two years later, you have to teach them again how to give a big kiss ). The way they steel your socks and are really surprised if you tell 'm socks are not made for that.Love 'm. Allways have. Can't help it.But I'm not ashamed.Not all. My last reply for now since its kinda a bit off topic, I dont wanna get in trouble My rottweiler ever since he was a puppy, always taught him to give loves (hugs and kisses) Still knows it... Go give *insert name here* a kiss He'll run up to ya and give ya a big wet one... and hes almost 3 years old... Such a big ol sweetie love him to death!Ttyl,WolfGuy
QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 10 2004, 02:39 AM)As i said before I am 'sure' that animals are able to decide, agree, disagree and so on.That is my main point : if we say that animals can't really decide for themselves, then animal defenders who are against zoophilia are right and we shouldn't have actual sex with animals, event with apparent consent.And, on the other hand, if we agree animals CAN decide for themselves, then i think we should let them decide if they want to have sex with someone or not.This was my exact meaning when i said this :QUOTE (simba @ Mar 9 2004, 06:41 PM)Aren't you being a hypocrite if you are violently against 'sharing' and yet a zoophile, by disguising jealousy into care ?... not that you HAD to 'share' your animal, of course. You see, i'm just pointing out that saying : "my dog wants me so it's OK to have sex with her/him and be a zoophile" AND "even if she/he wants it, there's no way somebody else touches her/him because she/he would actually be abused", saying this, makes absolutely no sense.It would be like saying animals can consent for YOU but not for others, which is a rather convenient, and hypocritical, view on the subject, don't you agree ? If the animal really wants just YOU she/he'll make it clear, like eccgen's dog.QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 10 2004, 02:39 AM)As Silverwolf said you can never know what happen! If it's you who's having sex with your dog you always know what you're doing and you can act and react. Someone else might not be able to keep a straight head and do the right thing at the right moment!This is why the owner/main partner has to be there to watch if everything is going alright.You see, i'm myself shared by my Master and his friends . And my Master and lover has always been VERY selective with the friends he allowed to touch me, and what they could do to me (we're in S&M you see), always being next to the action to see if everything was going alright. He could lend me to a friend without being here, i think, but this would be a REALLY close friend. Actually, he's more selective than i'd be if i were alone , which i'm very happy with, because i feel protected and "taken charge" of. Why couldn't this be the case with a dog (in some ways i'm very much like a dog myself) ? After all, the very reason i'm here is because my Master would agree to (and love to) 'share' me with a dog ! And a male dog, who can clearly show consent too !I think the main problem is how really ugly the word "share" sounds to many of you .BTW, i don't feel attacked at all, this is interesting .
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Me and my partner (human) swing at parties and through internet connections. I would never pimp my human or animal love but if they showed affection towards another person and I felt that they wernt out to use them I have no objections to sharing. As long as i can watch......
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE That is my main point : if we say that animals can't really decide for themselves, then animal defenders who are against zoophilia are right and we shouldn't have actual sex with animals, event with apparent consent.And, on the other hand, if we agree animals CAN decide for themselves, then i think we should let them decide if they want to have sex with someone or not.The problem i see with this is (just my opinion) it can get way to easy to say 'She/he wanted it!' or she 'Wants it. go for it!' As i said i belive that animals judge and see the world by different rules and ways then we do! So if a bitch decides to have sex with you she knows what you're doing to her but when she shows affection to another one she expect that the same thing will happen! She will expect to be treated the same way as by you. But would she understand if she wont get treated like that because the human she going at it with isnt like you!I hope you see what i want to say... Of yourse if you will hurt her she will let know you! (i expeareanced that myself) But the risk what the tiny second might change in her or cause to her is IMHO to high to even consider to risk it...Damn i just cant find the right words to eyplain whats on my mind... I hope you see what i mean nontheless...
QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 10 2004, 02:39 AM)As i said before I am 'sure' that animals are able to decide, agree, disagree and so on.That is my main point : if we say that animals can't really decide for themselves, Hold on there dude!!! Nobody least of all at this forum is saying that Animals can not decide for themselves!! So in my opinion your point just became pointless!!! *rolling eyes* I think you think you are talking to a group of right wing Anti Zoophiles. YOU ARE NOT!! We are anything but that and do support the notion that animals can and do indeed decide for themselves when and if they want to engage in sex with humans!! So your point is pointless!!!then animal defenders who are against zoophilia are right and we shouldn't have actual sex with animals, event with apparent consent.And, on the other hand, if we agree animals CAN decide for themselves, then i think we should let them decide if they want to have sex with someone or not.This was my exact meaning when i said this :QUOTE (simba @ Mar 9 2004, 06:41 PM)Aren't you being a hypocrite if you are violently against 'sharing' and yet a zoophile, by disguising jealousy into care ?... not that you HAD to 'share' your animal, of course. You see, i'm just pointing out that saying : "my dog wants me so it's OK to have sex with her/him and be a zoophile" AND "even if she/he wants it, there's no way somebody else touches her/him because she/he would actually be abused", saying this, makes absolutely no sense.Huh???????? Who the hell is saying that??? You are the one putting words and making assumptions that don’t apply…. You need to slow down buddy and think before you speak.It would be like saying animals can consent for YOU but not for others, which is a rather convenient, and hypocritical, view on the subject, don't you agree ? If the animal really wants just YOU she/he'll make it clear, like eccgen's dog.Again nobody is disputing that!!! And you are just running with it like a mad man!!! Lol QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 10 2004, 02:39 AM)As Silverwolf said you can never know what happen! If it's you who's having sex with your dog you always know what you're doing and you can act and react. Someone else might not be able to keep a straight head and do the right thing at the right moment!This is why the owner/main partner has to be there to watch if everything is going alright.I think you are still very much missing the point of this whole thread… You need to scroll back and read word for word what Silverwolf said I think he pretty much put it in a nut shell and there is little else to be said beyond that. While true you should never treat an animal like private property that you can do with as you wish still an animal is much like a child in that they do not know the full extent of the things out there that may harm them…It is your responsibility as it would be if it were your child to act responsible and do what is right for the child. And this next part of what you wrote just kind of demonstrates how off base you really are!!! grrrrrrrYou see, i'm myself shared by my Master and his friends . And my Master and lover has always been VERY selective with the friends he allowed to touch me, and what they could do to me (we're in S&M you see), always being next to the action to see if everything was going alright. He could lend me to a friend without being here, i think, but this would be a REALLY close friend. Actually, he's more selective than i'd be if i were alone , which i'm very happy with, because i feel protected and "taken charge" of. Why couldn't this be the case with a dog (in some ways i'm very much like a dog myself) ? After all, the very reason i'm here is because my Master would agree to (and love to) 'share' me with a dog ! And a male dog, who can clearly show consent too !Geeeeezus!!! I can not believe you are actually trying to draw a comparison between yourself “The boy slave” aching to please his human master to that of a dog and his/her relationship with a man/woman to that of your own!!!!Criminie sakes alive I just have to bite my tongue right here to keep from totally whaling on you dude!!!I think the main problem is how really ugly the word "share" sounds to many of you .Oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeee do not insult me!!!! BTW, i don't feel attacked at all, this is interesting .Good I hope you see this!!!! And I hope some of it sinks in althought its highly unlikely!!! Wendy *snickering*
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 12 2004, 02:04 AM) QUOTE That is my main point : if we say that animals can't really decide for themselves, then animal defenders who are against zoophilia are right and we shouldn't have actual sex with animals, even with apparent consent.And, on the other hand, if we agree animals CAN decide for themselves, then i think we should let them decide if they want to have sex with someone or not.The problem i see with this is (just my opinion) it can get way to easy to say 'She/he wanted it!' or she 'Wants it. go for it!' As i said i belive that animals judge and see the world by different rules and ways then we do! But that's what animal defenders say...Do you see what i mean ?WendyWinks2, i don't think misunderstanding what i wrote and being a tad hysterical helps.I thought it was a board rule not to openly show contempt to anyone here. And for what reason again ?If you actually read and try to calmly understand what i say, you'll see we're not even in opposition.I'm very much missing the point of this whole thread ? Then why some people agree with me and others discuss with me politely ? What can't you do the same, i wonder.*snickering* indeed ?
QUOTE (Honeyraptor @ Mar 12 2004, 02:04 AM) QUOTE That is my main point : if we say that animals can't really decide for themselves, then animal defenders who are against zoophilia are right and we shouldn't have actual sex with animals, even with apparent consent.And, on the other hand, if we agree animals CAN decide for themselves, then i think we should let them decide if they want to have sex with someone or not.The problem i see with this is (just my opinion) it can get way to easy to say 'She/he wanted it!' or she 'Wants it. go for it!' As i said i belive that animals judge and see the world by different rules and ways then we do! But that's what animal defenders say...Do you see what i mean ?WendyWinks2, i don't think misunderstanding what i wrote and being a tad hysterical helps.Hysterical??????? Hahahahaha....hahahahaa... Good one! Um ... I was in no way being hysterical and if I had been believe me I would have carried on ranting and raving while ripping into every bit of nonsense you had to say.I thought it was a board rule not to openly show contempt to anyone here. And for what reason again ?I was giving my opinion and my assessment of your post...end of story!!!If you actually read and try to calmly understand what i say, you'll see we're not even in opposition.Dude that was what I was trying to tell you ....now you act as if you understood that all along!!! When in fact you were talking to the forum like it was in opposition of that view I did read exactly what you had to say...er as best I could make any kind of sense out of it. And I was very calm about it ...if anyone here thinks differently then please be my guest and speak up.... I'm not beyond admitting I am wrong if in fact that is the case but I dont think so.I'm very much missing the point of this whole thread ? Then why some people agree with me and others discuss with me politely ? What can't you do the same, i wonder.I dont see anybody here agreeing with you. Nor has anyone spoken up in support of what you wrote. in fact this thread was falling to the bottom of the board till I clicked on it and read what you wrote.... I found it to be very mixed up when I read what you wrote.... I let it go for a day and thought if I came back to it the next day I might be able to make better sense of it ....but nope it hit me the same way it did the first time.
Simba: I know what you mean, and shall i tell you something? It took me almost half an hour to get words right so it wouldnt sound just like that... Seems like i screwed it up... But IMHO there a huge diference if a zoo says it or a non zoo or a animal defender. They dont see animals like we do, to most of them a dog is just a dog! Nothing more nothing less... But to us he/she is more, way more! What i ment was the allthough most of us treat animals as equal they are still animals... no thats not right.. *sigh* How shall i say it...To me my dog is on the same level as any human. Hes not less not more then that but does that change him into something else then a dog?No, hes still a dog and the world looks different to him then it looks to me! He lives by different views and rules then we do.
Someone argued that if I am free to let someone else make love to my girlfirend,then I am also free to share my pets. On the contrary, many pet ownersthink that animals are not goods to sell, buy or rent. So, sincepornography deals with pets and actors who have never met before, porno pics and clips should never be watched by any real animal lover.Both argoments are wrong! Sex between animals and humans is good ( andcan be used by porno industry ) as long as everyone is free to act andnobody is forced to act against her/his will. sO, If a male dog usedin beast pics/clips is free to lick or mount several girls, nobodycan forbid his owner to act, watch or film him. I think it's quite simpleto understand..
Hector_it: I agree on that. I think it was eccgen was the one who said in one of his posts: The cameras are there because we're doing it - or something like that...There is something that came to my mind while i walked my dog today.Most of us agree on the point that if the animal wants sex why should we deny it to him/her. As is aid i think the same way.Anyways, but IMHO the sexdrive could easily be abused. Lets take a male dog f.e.They are usualy always horny and willing to go As is said they usualy dont care what or who they're humping, no matter if its their lover or another willing human. But what if someone with such a willing dog would bring in a new human every day to which the dog would agree to go down with. Would that still be ok? Ok, the dog will probably enjoy it and the human also. But wouldnt that be some kind of misuse of the sexdrive of the dog?Just an idea, i would like to know what you all think...
Great conversation over here! This is why I love this forum so much. Last couple of weeks I got realy fed up with new members who keep on posting the same stupid clips and pics that even my granny has seen Except of course the cool posters like pick 7, fox and personal posters and so many more (like ili always helping out posters) , love you guys!!!Well I would never share a female dog with anyone else! Like lost of you said dogs can't make any real decisions although they can growl and stuff but I would realy feel wrong. The essential think about having sex with animals is the loving and the caring for each other! Without it, it's just using a dog like a sex toy although I must admit I can understand the people who don't have a dog and want to have sex with them but still having sex with an animal without having a good realtionship with them feels wrong.I wouldn't share my dog with everyone, if someone would hurt him I would realy break every bone in his or her body and this is for real! I love him so much but I would have less problem with wharing a male dog cuz they're so horny. I would love to share my dog with someone I realy trusty and like (like 2 guys on this forum you know who I'm talking about) but still my rott would be in charge and I wouldn't let them do anything he didn't like!Hope I don't sound hypocrite or something but this is how I feel
I think the real question is : would you let your dog/animal have sex with someone else than you ?Myself, i live in my boyfriend's flat and a large dog would be unhappy here (not to mention our two cats getting jealous). I'm still a zoo virgin but i'm really longing to experience closeness with a dog. More than anything, i'd like to feel the fur/skin contact, to touch his tongue with mine, to play with him naked and at his level (on all four), etc. So even though i can't "get my own" (how ugly that sounds anyway, like buying a toy), i'm indeed planning to have sex with another guy's dog.But, and because of this i see myself more like a zoophile than a bestialist, the dog would have to turn me on (that is, i must find him beautiful and attractive), and i must feel he likes me, otherwise i don't see the point of having intercourse. Whereas i guess bestialists just get turned on by any dog, and don't care much about his/her feelings.So, in short, even though i do want to have sex with someone elses's dog, i don't think i'm seeing them as sex toys. Besides, i'm attracted by males, and with them, consent is a lot clearer, and many zoo male dog owners don't have sex with their dogs and just want to watch them "doing" guys or girls anyway.
(The interest for this topic seems to lower every day, oh well...)Simba: Like i said back on page 1 (and how Kimball said ) i would share my current lover only with someone i would trust and which i would like very much!! And as hes a male dog he would be in charge so he can decide where and when to stop. Like i said Love and emotions mean a lot to me and therefor i wouldnt feel comfortable with someone else mate, just because he/she would only go down with me for desire and lust. There would be something missing - atleast to me i dont know how other people think about that...As for a female dog, again i would let it totaly up to her to decide if she wants to or not. But i wont bring her into a situation where she has to decide, on purpose!IE: I wouldnt bring her into our 'playroom' with another zoo so she might get the idea its time to get down - same with my male.But If she/he would show sexual interest into the other human somewhere else i wouldnt deny it to her/him - but again i would have to trust him/her (hey you never know!) 100%!!Again i can understand and accept your point - but for me that wouldnt be an excuse. I just would have to wait til i would have enough space and room for a lover...Kimball: Just like i said to Wendy, you're not a hypocrite its just your opinion!
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Ok, this is a question that is bothering me for months now.... honey, this is an interesting question... i too have seen many of these ads, posts around in various venues, and while i suppose that they "serve" a purpose, i don't think i could ever indiscriminately supply dogs for "use" by people... now this may seem a bit counter to an earlier message on another topic, but when i said id like to be able to have some dogs and train them so i could provide pleasure and love for others, i meant primarily for people i know personally, who have an interest in zoo and beast, not for the general public out there who are seeking for basically an animal prostitute. anyone i shared a pet with would have to be someone i knew personally, who i knew loved my animal(s) as much as i, and with whom i had already established a personal relationship with... of some kind, and i would have to know them quite well and my pet(s) would also have to know them and "approve" of them prior to being lovers...hope this is sufficiently explanatory to anyone who saw my other post... cunninglinguist
i don't think so.....She's MINE...MINE...MINE!but seriuosly... i wouldn't be comfortable sharing my lover with anyone...unlessthey were very close to me and my animals...then maybe...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
cunninglinguist54: I see what you mean and as i said in my case it would be the same. The one who would want to spend some time with my love would have to be very very close!! In RL i know noone that would even come close to that - not even my brother!Online there are currently two with whom i would share him as i trust them very very much! Both of them love and care for animals very much and i know from both they would never ever do something wrong with a animal, no matter if their own or someone elses!But again, i wouldnt advisedly bring my love into a situation where he/she has to decide - like i mention a few posts down he/she has to make the first step dogman: Good answer No seriously...
That right HR. If and since I am in LOVE with my dog I sure ain't going bring a human into a relationship between my dog and myself. Just as a husband and wife, it's wrong to bring or share in that relationship, and that goes for you and your Lover (dog,animal or what)Love is LOVE, no matter what species it is. If it's true Love then thats what it's meant to be and to be between the two of you.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (Wolfie @ Mar 24 2004, 07:33 AM) Just as a husband and wife, it's wrong to bring or share in that relationship... Ahem. With a husband and wife, it's wrong FOR THEM if it's not right for them for at least one of them.Not because you decided it for them .
QUOTE (kitry @ Mar 8 2004, 06:14 PM) I will and have, but only to people I know well and trust. My dog being male, is always willing and I think it would be selfish to deny him something he would enjoy because of what human society says is right or wrong. Monogamy is not a concept that many animals understand. So yes, I share but very very rarely. I'd let m pup screw anyone he wants, but I have to admit, I think I'd be jealous as heck!
gee HR I,m sorta in the same boat as you.while under most all situations i would NOT share my fem canine or equine loveri might if they were the ones indacating they wanted attention from the other person. but it would also depend on how well i knew or trusted the person toomale lovers i,d be more inclined to let mate with someone else but agian the same conserns or rules applyso mostly it would be up to my mate to chooseHB58
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Absolutely no way would I share. Well, let me rephrase that. Like you, HoneyRaptor, it would have to be with someone that I trusted dearly and even then it would be very, very rarely. Animals have feelings too and I would not do that to my furry friend (edited to add unless he really really wanted to)!
Ok, im curious, we got many new members since this thread disapeared How are the newbies thinking about this. Let me know and share your opnion wiht us!!
I'm a newbie and I still feel the same way. No change. Unless it's money.
I would share with a girlfriend or spouse but not to anyone looking for a ride. Just plain wrong
no way, I would never share my lover with anyone under any circumstances.
it seems to me that most everyone in here pretty much agrees that they wouldnt indiscriminately share their love, be he/she animal or human (and yes i know humans are animals too, this is for sake of differentiation) with just any tom, dick, or harriet around. discretion, trust, emotions, and faith in your partner as well as the sharer, all are part of the equation. if you dont believe in their trustworthiness, or wouldnt want them for your partner, then why would you want to share them with your love?its simple and complex all at once as are most things, with no simple, cut and dried, pat little answer. i think it boils down to each individual's personal choice, and since we all hate being judged because of our proclivities which are counter to mainstream society, we should not quibble, or squabble over whether it is right or wrong to share our lover. it is an individual choice coupled with the desires of the lover... and yes, i do believe our four legged lovers are capable of indicating whether they have a desire to love or be loved by another than ourselves...cl54
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
BIG BUMPthis is a really good question that I was going to post myself - but of course I searched the archieves first before creating a duplicate thread I think there has been enough flaming in this thread - let's all continue this subject with respect and understanding for each other...it will be nice to hear perspectives on this topic from members we have come to know...
As most Active Zoo's and beast's know, There is alot of people who just wanna try it for the first time or that are using the animal to get to you. Years ago I was open to meeting people online that claimed to be zoos or beasts. Well I think 2 out of 5 might have been telling the truth. Im a big guy and almost got sexually assulted one time.Im now pretty picky who I meet. Locally, I know 2 active Zoos and 1 beast. We do share but, we have our companions... We dont need to seek that which we already have. Do millionaires share there money? I understand that some people might not be able to have a pet of there own. But, if it is really important for these people to have a companion, they will be able to make the sacrifices needed to obtain there goals. I did and have never looked back.I guess this doesnt answer the question because there is alot of variables..
I would like to make some observations here. First, I am puzzled by people who think something like sharing is absolutely morally wrong under any circumstances. We should remember how we feel about being told that zoophilia is "just plain wrong". The fact is that these choices are all ours and our partners to make for ourselves, just as chosing to follow our zoophile nature is our own choice. I am also a bit bemused at the number of zoos who carry the human concepts of monogamy into their zoo relationships. Dogs and horses may have favorite mates, but are not generally monogamous (with the exception of wolves). To me, one of the great joys of being a horse zoo is that I can mate with different mares, and they can mate with stallions or other zoos if they so chose. I for one love sharing a mare with a stallion or two. His energy in ravaging our shared lover is contageous, and I love slopping around in his seed. I also enjoy having a mare in heat watch me with another mare. Mares are often attracted to other mares in heat, and mating one while the other nibbles and loves on her is wildly exciting. I actually had one filly who would dry hump while watching me with her mother.Now I would personally never offer my animals to strangers, nor do I answer emails asking if I "share". If someone does not care enough about an animal to feed and care for it, I don't give a fig to help them get their rocks off. Worse, those emails are insulting to me. Having said that, I don't judge people who want to "marry" their animal mates nor those who share them openly, as long as the animal is not forced or abused in any way. To me, the main purpose of monogamy is to assure the offspring have two parents to support them. Since zoo relationships do not create offspring we are free to make up the rules to suit ourselves. Since we cannot hope for understanding from the outside world, let's at least offer it to eachother.OZ
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I would share Sora (my GSD) with someone else, BUT ONLY with someone I knew very well and trusted, and only if I knew that that person would not do anything to hurt her in any way.
I personally don't want to share any of this part of my life except for Mr. Right. I have had a lot of requests for 'dog' rentals and personally the thought makes me sick. It is like somebody asking to screw your kid. To me it is just as bad as guys that try to coerse into allowing them to watch.I am not a freak show and neither are my animals.
QUOTE (K9malinois @ Nov 20 2005, 02:21 AM) I have had a lot of requests for 'dog' rentals and personally the thought makes me sick. It is like somebody asking to screw your kid. I can understand your feeling about this - but this wasn't part of the thread - no one suggested anything about money exchange...I asked everyone to comment on the thread WITHOUT flaming others - if you can't hold a civil conversation without letting emotion take over - then please refrain from commenting....
I will, and have shared my pet several times, with people who want the experience, or with people for whatever reasons can't or don't have their own pet. I own a black male lab that really loves sex, and he has never refused anyone that he has been shared with. Dogs by nature are NOT monogamous, and will breed any available female in heat, so with me, he also has the same opportunities with humans
Although I definitely understand how people who aren't fortunate enough to have their own companions to share their love with feel, seeing as how I have never had a horse of my own and probably won't for quite some time, I could never share my horses with someone else.When the day comes I finally am in a situation that allows me to have horses of my own, I will be the only human that has any kind of sexual contact with them, and then even only if they want it. To me, it just seems like that is something special between the animal and the human that wasn't meant to be shared with other humans.I mean, how would you feel if someone asked to have sex with your wife/husband/significant other? If I'm lucky enough to find that special mare or gelding or stallion or any combination thereof, I would hold them in the same regard and treat them with the same respect as a human companion.I realize that animals, by nature, are not monogomous, and I wouldn't prevent my lovers from mating with another of their species (as my plan is to have several mares and stallions one day), but with humans it's a little different. I'm not a very trusting individual, 19 years of people stabbing me in the back has given me a heightened sense of caution when putting faith in other human beings, because human beings are the only creatures I've come into contact with that have caused me pain. I've never met a horse that stuck her nose up at me or hurt me just because of my looks or social status. That being said, the thought of trusting another human being enough to allow them to do something so intimate with my loved ones is unthinkable to me.Now, perhaps if one day, I were to find a human partner to share my life with, I would let her in. She would have to be willing to accept that part of me anyway if she truly wanted the relationship to work, because I'm not going to give up a part of who I am and take away my love for my horses just to satisfy her. And if she wanted to join in, that just means my horses get to have more fun anyway. Of course, this is all just one man's opinion, nothing more. I'm not meaning to step on any toes or offend anyone at all, I have nothing against those who share their lovers - that is their choice and it's not my place to say it's right or wrong. That's something that the human and animal have to decide for themselves.
QUOTE (pick_7 @ Nov 20 2005, 03:32 AM) I will, and have shared my pet several times, with people who want the experience, or with people for whatever reasons can't or don't have their own pet. I own a black male lab that really loves sex, and he has never refused anyone that he has been shared with. Dogs by nature are NOT monogamous, and will breed any available female in heat, so with me, he also has the same opportunities with humans QUOTE I will, and have shared my pet several times, with people who want the experience, or with people for whatever reasons can't or don't have their own pet. I own a black male lab that really loves sex, and he has never refused anyone that he has been shared with. Dogs by nature are NOT monogamous, and will breed any available female in heat, so with me, he also has the same opportunities with humans Thanks a lot for your liberal, oppenminded attitude to this tricky question. If I could have a pet of mine I'd be like you.
i think your animal lover should stay to you and you only otherwise he/she may think that its ok to do everyone and that could lead to problems i keep my babies to myself of couse the only people who know are you guys and gals
Well there's the rub, eh?Either animals are like property, and they're ours to share, or they're not, and frankly their feelings don't matter because (we've just decided) that they're property, and how can property have feelings?If they're not property, then we can argue that they aren't capable of making safe sexual choices -- but if they're not, we shouldn't have sex with them, and the people who claim we're abusing them are right.If they're not property and ARE capable of making their own sexual choices, then who are we to decide who they can or cannot have sex with?Kind of a thorny problem, isn't it?And people say ethics isn't fun! Just goes to show you that a knee-jerk reaction isn't always the right one...
QUOTE (atomx @ Nov 23 2005, 08:36 AM) [*]If they're not property and ARE capable of making their own sexual choices, then who are we to decide who they can or cannot have sex with?[/LIST]Kind of a thorny problem, isn't it?And people say ethics isn't fun! Just goes to show you that a knee-jerk reaction isn't always the right one... -errr well there is a hole in that theory atomix - a pubecient minor is capable of making decisions of who when and if they want to have sexual relations -but of course parental intervention is necesary... just because they want to -doesn't mean it's the right choice... animals -and humans - often act out of instict - it's doesn't necesarily make it the wisest or healthiest choice... we as adult humans are suppossed to be there to protect and guide in either circumstance... this isn't a vote one way or the other - and not a flame - there are a lot of good thoughts on both sides of the issue here - but I don't think that arguement holds water... it's isn't as cut and dry as other posters oppossed to your position have made it sound - and it isn't cut and dry as you have proposed - just because an animal consents (and I am declaring here that I do believe they consent) doesn't mean it's the wisest decision to take them up on thier offer -the circumstances do dictate.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I guess that's the same as swingers (wifeswapping) I am not into it, i would never "share" like that. if htere were another human of the opposite gender wishing to participate with me and my canine, then it can happen. But no, i am vey disenheartened by folks that can want ad for swapping. But that's me.
IMHO I would not share my dog with just anyone. Only IF I knew them very well and knew them to be clean and disease free. Like so many others on here, I enjoy the movies, but feel that they will make the movies whether I watch them or not, and since I can do nothing about it, I might as well enjoy them. Also like so many have pointed out, a male dog is NOT manogomous and I don't think they would mind at all in mounting more than one female. If they DID mind--well that would be a different matter.
QUOTE (southflorida @ Nov 23 2005, 01:41 PM) QUOTE (atomx @ Nov 23 2005, 08:36 AM) [*]If they're not property and ARE capable of making their own sexual choices, then who are we to decide who they can or cannot have sex with?[/LIST]Kind of a thorny problem, isn't it?And people say ethics isn't fun! Just goes to show you that a knee-jerk reaction isn't always the right one... -errr well there is a hole in that theory atomix - a pubecient minor is capable of making decisions of who when and if they want to have sexual relations -but of course parental intervention is necesary... just because they want to -doesn't mean it's the right choice... animals -and humans - often act out of instict - it's doesn't necesarily make it the wisest or healthiest choice... we as adult humans are suppossed to be there to protect and guide in either circumstance... this isn't a vote one way or the other - and not a flame - there are a lot of good thoughts on both sides of the issue here - but I don't think that arguement holds water... it's isn't as cut and dry as other posters oppossed to your position have made it sound - and it isn't cut and dry as you have proposed - just because an animal consents (and I am declaring here that I do believe they consent) doesn't mean it's the wisest decision to take them up on thier offer -the circumstances do dictate. But actually that's exactly the point I was trying to make! We (society) have decided that post-pubescent minors, while they might physically WANT to have sex, aren't able to make that decision due to the consequences of their actions.If we're going to lump animals into that same moral category (have the physical urge but don't have the maturity/sophistication to deal with the consequences), then having sex with them is abuse; just like we don't say that post-pubescent minors can have sex with some adults because those adults really know better -- we just call it abuse. It's the p-word that we all know not to talk about on here.That's exactly the problem; by defining animals as being incapable of making their own fully-informed sexual decisions, we've put them into the same category as children who are sexually, but not legally, mature.The thing is that I think that people always think that the things they feel strongly about -- sex with minors, for instance -- are black-and-white, whereas when it comes to THEIR "kinks" -- say a "gray area" like sex with animals -- they'll hem and haw and say "but it's complicated."Is it really that complicated? If we're having sex with creatures that we believe cannot safely and fully consent to sex (safely and fully meaning, with full understanding of the consequences), then yes, by many people's definitions, that's sexual abuse. That, in fact, is the core of the argument against beastiality.I don't buy the argument that animals are like children who have to be protected from the big, bad, sexual adults. I think that animals of a sexual age ARE adults -- they're just not human. So yes, we have to make sure they're really consenting, but other than that, it's nobody else's right to second-guess who the animals want to have sex with, whether that's the animal's "owner," or a complete stranger.The thing about morality is, you can't have it both ways. You can't say "see, he's humping my leg, he consents to sex," and then turn around and say "sure, he's humping that stranger's leg, but he doesn't fully understand the consequences, so it would be morally wrong for that stranger to have sex with him." Yes, the pet-as-owned-property argument would hold water: if the pet is not a being, but rather a piece of property, then you (the owner) have 100% say in what is done with your property. But if the pet is a creature with his own wants and desires, then it's hypocritical to say he's capable of consenting when he has sex with you, but not when he has sex with someone else.And I agree -- I'm not trying to start a flame war either. As I'm sure you have seen, I'm very interested in the ethical questions. I think that the ethics of beastiality, frankly, isn't very clearly understood. In fact, I think that all human sexuality is a bit shaky in the ethical department -- we can't, as a society, even seem to come to a full and final definition of "rape," for instance. I find it interesting and tend to ramble on about it; it's not with an intent to flame or an intent to make people uncomfortable. But I think it's interesting, and important to talk about.
Atomx, very well said , I agree with you 100 %.
Mary is 22 and just returning from college -living with her father until she can use her new diploma to secure gainful empolyment and get a place of her own... her brother Brad has a stud Dane - but Brad has now went off to college himself...Rover the dane is 4 but hasn't had any experience with females living in an all male household -and all of the sudden gets a wiff of Mary's sweet pussy... Mary is alone in the house one day and Rover shoves his snoot into her crotch and starts licking Mary's pie through her panties - Mary sees Rovers big hefty doggie dick and gets hot -and decieded to give it a try - just as Rover slams his cock into her hole Mary's father comes home from work -walks in the door - and is OUTRAGED -he throws Mary out - and sends Rover off to be put to sleep... Brad who loves Rover is off at school and isn't there to protect him from his father's choices... Rover was CLEARLY consenting - he indeed even initiated the play - but Mary was VERY unresponsible -and the father is uninformed... and now the situation is tragic...the correct choice would have been for Mary to take Rover to a motel and enjoy the consentaul play without the risk of being caught and say she just took him for a walk... it has nothing to do with Rover consenting - he clearly initiated the play -but it wasn't the right choice on Mary's part - it doesn't nullify the fact that Rover was willing... he is VERY capable of consenting -just like often he will reject (look at the bruise photos in this section!) Mikey is a farm stud without ANY formal education -his parents died young and he was raised by his brother Darryl and his other brother Darryl Mikey meets Ginger up the road and she looks a whole lot better than his brothers -and Ginger can't wait to get a piece of the hunky farm stud -they "get to it" -and a month later Ginger says shes pregnant - Mikey says "pregnant -I thought you was catholic?" -just because Mikey didn't know the consequences it wasn't consentual??????????? animals DO consent and DO reject -humans are sometimes unresponsible unavailable and uninformed -just because Rover isn't capable of knowing consequences would never lead me to believe that he's not capable of consenting... the two issues are as seperate as church and state...
I remember when it was impossible for me to have my own animal and would have been very greatful to anyone that would have allowed me to spend time with thier lover.I would absolutley share my male dog with a zoo (notice that I used the word zoo) that was unable to have his or her own animal or with someone that truly was trying to discover thier own sexuality. I would never allow someone to just have anal or vaginal sex with one of my dogs for the sake of finding out if they are into animals.I believe that we all need to choose who we associate with irl and also be considerate and caring about people that may have thier emotions and true feelings hidden or are too ashamed of thier feelings due tot he pressures of society.Let's face it, there are very few people that would really engage in sex with an animal if they were offered the opportunity. Most of these people are wannabes or want to watch the "freaks" have sex with an animal and masterbate thinking about it.If someone is really and truly emotionally and sexually attracted to animals, then I feel, on a case by case basis, I would want to offer help!
QUOTE (danethruster @ Nov 29 2005, 11:42 PM) Let's face it, there are very few people that would really engage in sex with an animal if they were offered the opportunity. Most of these people are wannabes or want to watch the "freaks" have sex with an animal and masterbate thinking about it. I know your intentions wasn 't to flame - but it's not appropriate to call members "wannabes" just because they aren't active... there are a LOT of reasons folks come to this site - some may have partners who are active - and some may have not yet figured out if it is for them -some may not have the means -and yeah -some may want to just see the "freak show" -but that's alright - so long as they show respect to the members of this forum and obide by the rules they are welcome reguardless of thier involvement level...just be a little more careful how you word these sensitive issues -thanX
It was absolutely not my intention to flame anyone and I apologize if it came across that way.
I know - no problem - just a heads up
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
i have in the past shared a male dog, but never one of my females.i guess its because i can better supervise and deside if someone is going to hurt a male better than i can with the females.I would really have to trust someone and know them well before i trust them with my dogs. they are family to me and i am overly protective
SouthFla, I think I understand the intent of your vignettes. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding them.You're implying that with knowledge comes responsibility. Mary could/should have known that her actions could harm the dog (as well as herself) and should have been more discreet.And with that point, I have no argument. But note that Mary's responsibility was towards her own actions, not towards her brother, or towards the dog. What if the brother had sex with the dog, and was caught? The brother, the arguable "owner" of the dog, caused the exact same outcome for the dog that Mary did. So clearly "sharing" or "borrowing" the dog is not the cause of the wrong.If Mary suspected that this eventuality was likely to happen, then she was guilty of wronging the dog (and herself) by her indiscretion. But what if she thought her Dad was in Africa and would never in a million years be home that evening? But a freak snowstorm grounded the plane and he decided it was an omen and canceled his safari... Is she still guilty? Is she as guilty?Also note again that Mary's responsibility was for her actions towards the dog, not for the dog's actions. If Mary's responsibility extended to choosing who the dog had or didn't have sex with, then she should oppose it if her brother, the "rightful owner" had sex with the dog, too, since the same set of outcomes (disownment, euthanization for the dog) could occur. But Mary doesn't control the dog's sexuality. Neither does her brother.That's where things get interesting. With freedom comes responsibility; you can't have one without the other. If the dog is "free" to choose to have sex or not -- which implies freedom to choose its preferred sex partner(s) -- then logically it must be responsible for its actions. If the consequence of sex is death, then it is responsible for its own death. But we don't like that outcome! We want to blame it on the nasty humans; and frankly yes, it is THEIR fault for killing the dog here. The dog had freedom, but insufficient knowledge. So Mary, in this case, should have chosen to not have sex with the dog, or chosen to be more discreet.But we cannot say that the dog doesn't have freedom to choose his own sex partner(s) and then claim that sex with the dog isn't forced! Lack of freedom to choose your sex partner implies that sex is forced. If you can't say "yes," then you can't say "no," and if you can't say "no," then all sex is that nasty r-word. You can abstain from sex completely, but that's the viewpoint of the SPCA, et. al., who claim that animals should never have sex with humans, period -- they claim that it's always abuse and frankly, if animals can't freely choose and consent, then I have to concur with them on that point. But is that where we want this to go? So... freedom to choose, the r-word, or total non-beastiality. So far, the only palatable option is freedom.This is why I claim that animal sexuality is a very thorny problem, morally. We want to restrict and control our animals' sexuality -- even as zoophiles -- but we are unwilling to admit that controlling a creature's sexuality makes it unable to consent to having sex with you. It's at best a puppet of your own desire, and at worst, an unwilling victim.However, if the animals CAN consent, in the true sense of the word, then they will sometimes fall prey to the consequences of their actions.Tricky.Of course, none of this applies directly to sharing animals (except as regarding the question of whether animals can choose their own sex partners, and may choose to have sex with someone other than their "owner"). We've drifted onto the bigger topic of "is sex with animals moral," which is frankly a topic big enough for its own post, or its own book, so I think I'll shut up here
QUOTE (atomx @ Dec 1 2005, 10:22 AM)SouthFla, I think I understand the intent of your vignettes. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding them.You're implying that with knowledge comes responsibility. Mary could/should have known that her actions could harm the dog (as well as herself) and should have been more discreet.And with that point, I have no argument. But note that Mary's responsibility was towards her own actions, not towards her brother, or towards the dog. What if the brother had sex with the dog, and was caught? The brother, the arguable "owner" of the dog, caused the exact same outcome for the dog that Mary did. So clearly "sharing" or "borrowing" the dog is not the cause of the wrong.If Mary suspected that this eventuality was likely to happen, then she was guilty of wronging the dog (and herself) by her indiscretion. But what if she thought her Dad was in Africa and would never in a million years be home that evening? But a freak snowstorm grounded the plane and he decided it was an omen and canceled his safari... Is she still guilty? Is she as guilty?Also note again that Mary's responsibility was for her actions towards the dog, not for the dog's actions. If Mary's responsibility extended to choosing who the dog had or didn't have sex with, then she should oppose it if her brother, the "rightful owner" had sex with the dog, too, since the same set of outcomes (disownment, euthanization for the dog) could occur. But Mary doesn't control the dog's sexuality. Neither does her brother.That's where things get interesting. With freedom comes responsibility; you can't have one without the other. If the dog is "free" to choose to have sex or not -- which implies freedom to choose its preferred sex partner(s) -- then logically it must be responsible for its actions. If the consequence of sex is death, then it is responsible for its own death. But we don't like that outcome! We want to blame it on the nasty humans; and frankly yes, it is THEIR fault for killing the dog here. The dog had freedom, but insufficient knowledge. So Mary, in this case, should have chosen to not have sex with the dog, or chosen to be more discreet.But we cannot say that the dog doesn't have freedom to choose his own sex partner(s) and then claim that sex with the dog isn't forced! Lack of freedom to choose your sex partner implies that sex is forced. If you can't say "yes," then you can't say "no," and if you can't say "no," then all sex is that nasty r-word. You can abstain from sex completely, but that's the viewpoint of the SPCA, et. al., who claim that animals should never have sex with humans, period -- they claim that it's always abuse and frankly, if animals can't freely choose and consent, then I have to concur with them on that point. But is that where we want this to go? So... freedom to choose, the r-word, or total non-beastiality. So far, the only palatable option is freedom.This is why I claim that animal sexuality is a very thorny problem, morally. We want to restrict and control our animals' sexuality -- even as zoophiles -- but we are unwilling to admit that controlling a creature's sexuality makes it unable to consent to having sex with you. It's at best a puppet of your own desire, and at worst, an unwilling victim.I have to disagree here still - just because an animal doesn't have a choice of WHO it wants to sleep with doesn't mean it can't reject the options of who is available... Let's say you atomix own a stud pitbull and I come to visit you and your stud show great interest in me -I start playing with him and he clearly shows sexual interest -I suggest to you that I would like to suck it's cock - and you decline saying that he's your stud - and that you don't share... I leave after a while -and you approach your stud sexually -he still has the option of denying your approach... so although an "owned" animal does sometime lose the right of "picking" his potential sex partners - I contend he never losses the right of reject what partners he does have to choose from...However, if the animals CAN consent, in the true sense of the word, then they will sometimes fall prey to the consequences of their actions.Tricky.animals will ALWAY have the possibility of falling prey to victims of thier own choices - they are not human - and they cannot predict outcomes of behavior - and that is the whole point of THIS particular conversation - it is human responsibilty to make the correct choices - and I still contend that consequences of failures in judgements have nothing to do with consent... Of course, none of this applies directly to sharing animals (except as regarding the question of whether animals can choose their own sex partners, and may choose to have sex with someone other than their "owner"). We've drifted onto the bigger topic of "is sex with animals moral," and once again I contend yes - that a animal does indeed have the options of consent and reject - and as long as a human sex partner observes the animals choices and doesn't force sexual activity on it - then it is perfectly moral concerning that issue... a aniamal does not have to have the freedom to choice a particular partner to reject or consent to the partner that is available..
Its its a Female, no, unless they're a close friend and she's really sucking up to them.When I have my male, he can be free to f*** whoever he wants, as long as he's doing the humping.Sharing can be wrong, but it can also be good at the same time. I personally believe an emotional connection is REQUIRED for interactions with females in intimate ways.
Alot of good post here. Its a nice grey area and one influenced by ones own personal choice in the end. For me? My boy wants you? sure no problems at all. But I know he does not want you ON him so you better not force him. The lady? well.. a nice gray area there for me. Personaly I think I'll be selfish and say No. BUT...If i knew someone well enough and she was begging him for it, I may change that rule. But dont you dare just take it without talking to me about it. I love them all so much and I want them to be as happy as I am. Sex to me is something so pleasing and I would not want to hold them back from injoying it to.I know they can make thier own minds up on how they feel about someone. Dont ever force any animal, You ask them nicely and they will tell you yes or no and if you dont beleave this or cant understand it then the answer is NO. No sex for YOU.
This thread is fascinating - and it's making me ask myself some major league questions about my own feelings on this issue.My chain of thought is as follows:I have 2 girls I hope will eventually accept me as their lover .IF that happens I may decide to record our activities, which may lead to wanting to make vids.The best vids (quality wise at least - IMHO) are recorded with a cameraman.If I bring another Zoo in as a cameraman - Would I consider "sharing" either or both of my girls?At this stage I would have to say no, I would not. I love them too much to risk either physical harm to them or an emotional setback from a bad experience.I have little interest in people beyond someone to have a drink with, or chat over a meal, so I can't see a relationship developing to the stage I'd reconsider. That level of trust just doesn't come easy.Just my thoughts for now - lucky I've got time to think about this Any comments?
No way in hell, i could never do it!
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Ok I'm new and i see other people before me have bought up this topic i hope i don’t sound like a mean F ked Head but i had alot of people ask can the join in and have a play with a husky that i don't even got yet but what gets me you raise your animal and you play with her or him and have fun at nights but when you start sharing your animal with complete strangers or friends ain’t you treating your animal like a sex pleasure toy and not like a lover or career of your animal. Is anyone else wild about this cause it’s starting to p s me off. I know the owner has every right to do whatever they want with there animal but makes me alittle
NO. There would be no way that I would share my boi. I dont even see how someone could 'want' to share their 'lover' to someone else. To me its like asking some dood "can i share your girlfriend/wife?", no offense, but not happenin'peace
I've had many, many guys offer me their dogs...I've never considered anything OTHER than deleting those emails/IMs/PMs...True, with men I'm sure most of them would at some point try to make a "you do the dog, then do me" deal...probably after I would show up at their house and have gone through the trouble to get there, in order to make a woman less inclined to say no.(Supposedly) Some men are jerks...by "some", it usually means "alot".But the actual offering of an animal bothers me too...I'm also of the mind that your animal lover is precious, not a prostitute of some kind to be handed around, except in special situations with people whom you trust and whom the animal is obviously showing an active interest in being with sexually. And that's only if you're the type who is ok with sharing even in a special situation.For myself, when I get my dog, I plan on him being only with me, and not handing him out to people. The only possibilty of future sharing is if I someday marry a man who would like to have sex with my male dog(my dog doing him, that is). Then we'd see how my dog would feel, and only how HE would feel, about having a second lover. It would be his choice from then on.
Let's face it, what we are discussing here is basically the difference between a Zoophile and Bestialist.Invariably the Zoos will come down on the "I'm not sharing my lover", and the Beastys will come down on the "hell yes, let's have some fun".Meanwhile the animal probably doesn't really give a f**k.
QUOTE (WebHamster @ Nov 15 2006, 02:12 PM) Let's face it, what we are discussing here is basically the difference between a Zoophile and Bestialist.Invariably the Zoos will come down on the "I'm not sharing my lover", and the Beastys will come down on the "hell yes, let's have some fun".Meanwhile the animal probably doesn't really give a f**k. Well said webhamster, I totally agree.
QUOTE (WebHamster @ Nov 15 2006, 07:12 PM) Let's face it, what we are discussing here is basically the difference between a Zoophile and Bestialist.Invariably the Zoos will come down on the "I'm not sharing my lover", and the Beastys will come down on the "hell yes, let's have some fun".Meanwhile the animal probably doesn't really give a f**k. I agree too - absolutley - but the conversation was going beyond just the yes or no - and into other deeper matters such as consent - responsibility - consequences - ect ect ect...again - I refuse to weigh in on this topic with a cut and dry stance - but I will comment on the most recent post(s) comparing the issue to sharing wives g/f ect... we all have different perspectives experiences ect... and I think it's a little short sighted to make judgement calls - you want to be respected for your choice to have sex with an animal - but you can't respect the fact that someone else would share a human partner? LOVE has nothing to do with this - and I find that insinuation insulting - I would NEVER enter into a monogomous relationship again - but to say that because that is my preference I somehow don't love - or my love is inferior in depths to those who are the opposite and would never enter a open relationship is bullsh!t !!! If you think a dick that has no boundries is somehow attatched to a heart that does maybe you should reconsider your thinking... my heart breaks and aches - and I cry myself to sleep like everyone else who has experienced TRUE love - and that doesn't change because I want to phuck the stud down the street - or that I am openminded enough to know that my partner(s) may want to phuck him too... lets not candy coat this - you folks aren't talking about LOVE - your talking about VALUES - and although it's hard - sometimes really hard for me to appreciate and respect those to the far right - whats really hardest is not that they choose to be conservative - it's thier lack of respect for those who choose not to be....*southy exits from the exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtreme far left door
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (southflorida @ Nov 15 2006, 10:37 PM) *southy exits from the exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtreme far left door With your coat presumably? Ain't anthropomorphism a wonderful source of conversation. I'd like anyone to try to explain consent, responsibility and monogamy to my horny young male pooch
NOPE!!!... 'nuff said?...
i wanted to say, that i agreed with Simba and thought the questions he posed were quite interesting. I hope he wasnt banned because of this discussion. I was more surprised that Wendy wasn't repromanded for how she responded to the comments. Animals, for all of the free will they are given credit for here on the board, seem to be greatly restricted as to whom they may have sex with, as opposed to thier human owners.Interesting things to be discussed.
QUOTE (southflorida @ Nov 23 2005, 01:41 PM) -errr well there is a hole in that theory atomix - a pubecient minor is capable of making decisions of who when and if they want to have sexual relations -but of course parental intervention is necesary... just because they want to -doesn't mean it's the right choice... animals -and humans - often act out of instict - it's doesn't necesarily make it the wisest or healthiest choice... we as adult humans are suppossed to be there to protect and guide in either circumstance... agreed. However, what makes it a bad descision for a teenager to have wanton sex? The only reasons you can give are those that are solely attached to humans. Pregnancy, disease, and negative emotions are all good reasons not to have sex at an early age, but all of these only apply to humans. There are no diseases (for all intents and purposes), pregnancy, or negative emotions involved on the animal side. What reprecussions are there for the animal for casual sex? Probably none
QUOTE (offtopic @ Nov 16 2006, 03:07 AM) QUOTE (southflorida @ Nov 23 2005, 01:41 PM) -errr well there is a hole in that theory atomix - a pubecient minor is capable of making decisions of who when and if they want to have sexual relations -but of course parental intervention is necesary... just because they want to -doesn't mean it's the right choice... animals -and humans - often act out of instict - it's doesn't necesarily make it the wisest or healthiest choice... we as adult humans are suppossed to be there to protect and guide in either circumstance... agreed. However, what makes it a bad descision for a teenager to have wanton sex? The only reasons you can give are those that are solely attached to humans. Pregnancy, disease, and negative emotions are all good reasons not to have sex at an early age, but all of these only apply to humans. There are no diseases (for all intents and purposes), pregnancy, or negative emotions involved on the animal side. What reprecussions are there for the animal for casual sex? Probably none ohh yes - there are HUGE reprecussions - like LIFE - have you never heard of animals being put down because they hump/act sexually inappropriate... and how about the anmals who are put down just because someone caught a human having sex with them... just for starters - theres some food for thought
well said southie... another reprecussion could also be their mental health... how many of us as adults have felt guilty about our feelings for our pets??? imagine those feelings and emotions in a teen... 100% worse and with no one to talk to .. well there is no way to get a hold of those feelings.. so it could lead to all sorts of worse behaviour... many have hurt themselves for lesser acts..
QUOTE (offtopic @ Nov 16 2006, 02:58 AM) i wanted to say, that i agreed with Simba and thought the questions he posed were quite interesting. I hope he wasnt banned because of this discussion. I was more surprised that Wendy wasn't repromanded for how she responded to the comments. Animals, for all of the free will they are given credit for here on the board, seem to be greatly restricted as to whom they may have sex with, as opposed to thier human owners.Interesting things to be discussed. ummm - one should never assume what someone was banned for - or if someone was warned for a particular infraction -Simba was not banned for this thread - but I personally don't think his arguments hold water - I'm not judging his stance on the subject - but he was yet another poster who doesn't take reprecussions into consideration... I wasn't a mod at the time of Wendy's postings - but I agree with you - she offered no constructive counterpoint - she just flamed - she hasn't been active on the board for eons - so it's a mute point.
QUOTE (southflorida @ Nov 16 2006, 06:08 AM) ohh yes - there are HUGE reprecussions - like LIFE - have you never heard of animals being put down because they hump/act sexually inappropriate... and how about the anmals who are put down just because someone caught a human having sex with them... just for starters - theres some food for thought this is true. i was thinking more in the realm of what was brought up, where people offer their animals for sex, in which both parties would be consenting and everyone involved would have a positive view on the subject. However, i suppose there is nothing stopping a third party from barging in.
yeah - that happens too like the recent porch piccy situation...again - we are not here to flame each others prospectives (unless thay are bigoted) and even with that - it's in hopes that we can widen each others -not necesarily even change them - but tolerance of what works for others is a beautiful thing...
Yes, basically we own our pet. As they are our property some of us think that it gives us the right to control their every movement. I personally consider that they are an individual, and not there just for our pleasure. I would not let any person use my friend as a toy for their sexual satisfaction. I wont got into all the problems that could be transmitted through sexual acts.
There is no way i would EVER share any animal i was close to with another person ... to me that would be like someone sharing thier wife or girlfriend with someone else ... i know that goes on but it is not normal for that would happen ... being an equiphile i do treat horses that i build a relationship with to be a GF or in rare cases i could consider one to be my wife .... and there is no way in hell i would i ever let another person touch her in a sexual manner. PS ... not knocking people that do share their animals .. just speaking my personal thoughts on this subject ...
QUOTE (Stripes @ Nov 17 2006, 01:10 AM) i know that goes on but it is not normal for that would happen ... normal? to that I say AGAIN:QUOTE but I will comment on the most recent post(s) comparing the issue to sharing wives g/f ect... we all have different perspectives experiences ect... and I think it's a little short sighted to make judgement calls - you want to be respected for your choice to have sex with an animal - but you can't respect the fact that someone else would share a human partner? LOVE has nothing to do with this - and I find that insinuation insulting - I would NEVER enter into a monogomous relationship again - but to say that because that is my preference I somehow don't love - or my love is inferior in depths to those who are the opposite and would never enter a open relationship is bullsh!t !!! If you think a dick that has no boundries is somehow attatched to a heart that does maybe you should reconsider your thinking... my heart breaks and aches - and I cry myself to sleep like everyone else who has experienced TRUE love - and that doesn't change because I want to phuck the stud down the street - or that I am openminded enough to know that my partner(s) may want to phuck him too... lets not candy coat this - you folks aren't talking about LOVE - your talking about VALUES - and although it's hard - sometimes really hard for me to appreciate and respect those to the far right - whats really hardest is not that they choose to be conservative - it's thier lack of respect for those who choose not to be....*southy exits from the exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxtreme far left door your sooo normal and thus in a position to judge everyone who doesn't agree with your conservative views?
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I would Never share my boy, I'm a greedy, greedy bitch
no ,i would not share my girls with any one .not even a very close friend .we have a bond of trust they trust me i trust them i would never do any thing to break that trust .there mine ,mine,mine
I would have to say that I would share my girl with others, but only with someone I knew and felt that I could completly trust. Also she would have to be willing to take another suiter and I would have to be present to monitor the situation. I dont know about the rest of you but I would enjoy watching my girl being pleasured by another zoo that felt as close to animals as I do. Being an animal lover I worship k9's regardless of who there owner is and would do my best to create that solid bond with them regardless wether or not I would be able to take it to a sexual level.Just my two cents on that part.I apologize ahead of time for going off topic with this part but I would like input from others on the board regarding this.So heres my question. Would you share you k9 companion with some one that has been in a previous k9 relationship but has lost thier lover? I would simply because I know what its like to lose a k9 loved one and be without and incapable of providing for another due to circumstances outside my control. Of course provided the fact that all parties were "consenting" and knew the signs and boundries so to speak? I lost my girl as of Sept 06 and have longed to be with another for some time now and am still not in the position to where I could care for another as well as I would like to. Would you forsake me even if I was your close friend and confided in you my sensual thoughts for your companion?Just Curious.This is a great topic and I look foward to reading up on more view points from others on the board regarding this one. Carnal
Eh, before I start, just want to say I am using "animal" and "it" as a general term to attempt to include all animals male/female instead of saying dog/horse her/him over and over. Anyways...... QUOTE you want to be respected for your choice to have sex with an animal - but you can't respect the fact that someone else would share a human partner? Hmmm, I understand what you mean here, but I think what people are really thinking when they go against multiple partners, is that it would probably cause more problems if raising a kid(s)... not that it is necessarily "inferior". Of course, this reasoning does not apply in zoophilia or polygamic relationships where kids aren't included. It just seems like polygamic type relationships are too unstable for kids.... which I guess is a whole different topic As for consent... well, I think an animal is capable of consenting to the best of their ability. However, they are unable to understand the "human side" of how this subject is taboo, the possible dangers of being discovered, etc. Now does the lack of comprehension here mean that no matter the case, it would be rape/abuse? Hmm well, rape/abuse implies forceful/unwanted/harmful sexual activities... so if the animal is consenting to the most they are capable, I dont think that rape/abuse applies. The human must, however, analyze the situation and know how this activity could affect him/herself and the animal before they are fully consenting.Some have related zoophilia to sexual advances between adults and children... however, even if the child was willing and consenting as much as possible, the reason the sexual advances are called rape/abuse in this case would be that this type of activity is almost always, if not always, harmful to the child in psychological, physical, and/or emotional ways... regardless if they get caught.Now for sharing.... my brain hurts from the consent topic, but on to sharing anways I think I will go with the "only a select few, and then only if my animal was consenting" crowd. Part of the reason I feel this way is because I would have to trust the person not to do harm to my animal... if im not comfortable around the person, then why should I entrust my animal to them? Does this mean I am being hypocritical saying the animal can't choose the partner... unless it is me? No, I dont think I am being hypocritical, because even if the animal was consenting to another, it is my responsibility to make sure my mate is safe, and with me I know it is.... and it can still choose to reject me.Whew, it took an hour or two, but I think I cleared some stuff up for myself here.... what do you guys think?
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I'll keep my answer short. I would be willing to share, but if the dog ways not interested then NO sex.
QUOTE (EnigmaticVixen @ Nov 15 2006, 07:02 PM) I've had many, many guys offer me their dogs...I've never considered anything OTHER than deleting those emails/IMs/PMs...True, with men I'm sure most of them would at some point try to make a "you do the dog, then do me" deal...probably after I would show up at their house and have gone through the trouble to get there, in order to make a woman less inclined to say no.(Supposedly) Some men are jerks...by "some", it usually means "alot".But the actual offering of an animal bothers me too...I'm also of the mind that your animal lover is precious, not a prostitute of some kind to be handed around, except in special situations with people whom you trust and whom the animal is obviously showing an active interest in being with sexually. And that's only if you're the type who is ok with sharing even in a special situation.For myself, when I get my dog, I plan on him being only with me, and not handing him out to people. The only possibilty of future sharing is if I someday marry a man who would like to have sex with my male dog(my dog doing him, that is). Then we'd see how my dog would feel, and only how HE would feel, about having a second lover. It would be his choice from then on. there is much wisdom in what you say EV. although it is a dream for most of us to mate for life with on that shares our lifestyle, very few get that chance as we all know how accepting the world is of us.
Hey everyone checked and read everyone msg and respect what everyone does with there animals. Its good to hear though alot of people respect there animals and dont force them to have any action with someone that the animal doesnt like so i thnk i leave it there and its good to read what other people think of this topic. bye
OKcoming from my viewpoint, I must admit, I totally agree with that statement in full. I for one would never share Wolfie with somone else unless i absolutly trusted them, and I do have a general dislike of all porn, regardless of the gender/species of the subjects. But I am not to say that people dont have a right to share, I am a firm believer in free love (yes, I am a hippie), but only if the dog wants it as well AND the other person is known to be trustworthy, like a close friend, ect. Of course, diseases would be a worry....but only if the people were having sex with each other or they were doing the dog or whatever animal one after the other.animals an people have very different physiology and biology, and inter-species diseases are rare and few, even STD's dont transmit well.with the exception of ghonnerah (SP?) but if somone had that they would not be even touching Wolfiebut hey, its just an opinion, only what somone else thinks, no use getting all hung up about it!(told ya I was a hippie)Cheers and love,Charles and Wolfie
I just started to reed most of this back to frount.The thoughts here are interesting.Souths post hit home sadley to me.Wile at a beach party I cot picked up by a dog, we went off from the fire and spent some time between some logs. Some of the party people walked down the beach I was off out of the way didnt take much notice.Next year when I went back one of my friends told me that the father of some of the party people was told they were fooling with the dog, he shot the dog in frount of the family.I wonder since I was told and there are reasons for everything that happens if I was the start of something that had a trajic ending for real..Now we ride / drive horses. We competed where the horse is happy working. But we are responcible for how the animal is handled where he goes. When we bread mares we had 2 who would not stand, we sent them home un bread, I just did not think going further was right. The mare owners were mad but.I got to goto tired sorryRus
That is so horrible that they would shoot the dog..in front of the family too just for being engaged in a sexual act with him; what has our so called animal loving society coming to???As for the issue of sharing z{I hope I am not categorized as a beastialist} I currently am sharing my woof with my human mate..and neither seems to mind at all. I would not share him with just anyone however if I did not trust the individual and he {my woof} would have to show interest of course.
Im backWell it seams we have 2 issues here one being since we have better reasoning it is up to us to make sure the animal in guestion does not get into trouble when it gets home. I think the animal can consent and that is inportant as well. I am not a sharing kind of person but I would think it would be a very nice jesture to help some one have axcess to a dog who otherwise would not have one available. I can think of algeries in the household as an example.I did'nt know till the next year and did not inquire about it but I have always felt like I might have started something that ended terabally bad.Rus
This question is often asked so I will add my little bit and bring it back to the top again.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would I share my wife/lover/girlfriend/dog/horse/any creature who meant something deep to me?No of course I wouldn't, it would be like pimping!I have shared verbal experiences and watched others with their animals and in one case with his wife, but never considered using (the only word that will fit) someone elses lover, purely for my own pleasure. The very thought of loaning out for sexual purposes of one of my lovely dogs would be an act of betrayal.IMHOPokerman
Well I disagree with most. I'm new to the lifestyle and looking to find my first experience with a dog. And will mention I'm having trouble. I think it's like with humans there's a bunch of trial and error or searching for a relationship with animals as well. So, if everyone is saying they never share, that would mean the only relationship you ever have with an animal is one you personally own (no possession implied). So your first to your last experience will always be just with you and your animal. So my question is how do you find a true love mate, other than decades of pet ownership???-Wes-
No fuckin way.
Last modified on May 20th, 2012 | Zoodestiny.com | © 2003-2005 - All Rights Reserved