Bestiality

okay i am chiming in a little late but.. chiming in is what ill do.

When i frist got into BDSM (around 19 years old) i thought of beastiality as a NO NO, hard limit, so gross, never gunna do it, so on and so forth..It was never in fantasies, it was so far out of my mind kink wise.

Then i met a boy...wait a man,that i fell in love with (online), head over heels, and he was into beatiality. We would role play a lot, and he told me that he was into this kinda stuff. I,wanting to please him so badly, opened my mind to it, and started to role play with it, it became something we would role play about all the time, it started to turn me on and really get me going.

He then asked me if i was ever presented with a situation where i could have a dog fuck me, would i do it? I had to think long and hard about it.Yes in the role plays and fantasys it was nice,fun,exciting,new, kinky and got me horny. But could i ever do it in real life? In the end my answer was 'i dont know' i cant get my mind wrapped around it,i cant see myself in that situation, and i cant imagine me doing it. So the answer would really be no, but i wouldnt rule anything out.

Him and I have broken up and stopped talking, and does the k9 fastasys still lurk in my mind? Not at all they left right along with him. I dont sit around and dream about a dog fucking me, or me doing things to the dog, or visa versa. Was i into it with him? Yes. Without him im not into it.

do i think people that have had a bestiality expierence are gross? Not at all, heck more power to ya, its your kink!


Never deny what turns you on, ever. Thats what i learned. No matter how kinky or sick you may think it is there is someone else out there that is just as "sick" or as kinky as you.

Abuse to the animal, i think not. If its a male dog fucking a female human then he wants to, he is not being held against his doggy will to fuck a human. If he didnt want to do it then he wouldnt.

Thanks for responding, FTjr. Interesting.

And Snark, I agree, it doesn't seem like they're being forced in videos; however, is there maybe a lure to do the "deed?" Did you ever think that perhaps there's incentive for them to complete the act?

We train animals in all sorts of ways with positive reinforcement. So I'm of the mind that even a great dane or rottweiler, could be trained likewise.

Question for anyone who wishes to respond: If you are blindfolded, have sound taken from you, are spread eagle and suddenly feel a tongue working your nether regions - does it not feel just as good, be it beast or human - man or woman?

I won't respond because I hate oral performed on me. lol

well to start i'll say, even if they are trained in this way, is it abuse if it feeds their nature?

id say a man with a female animal would be considered abuse as someone stated earlier, just because even if you wanted to claim "well she was in heat!" or some such, its not quite the same as a dog willingly humping someone.

And as for your question blythe, im not a woman so im not sure it would quite apply to me -wryly- somehow I dont think a dog would take to oral sex on a man to anywhere near the same degree as a woman

That being said, and If im wrong I dont mean to put words in any womans mouth, however I mean, a tongue is a tongue, a dog tongue might have a different texture, but id imagine the pleasure would be the same, perhaps not as skilled though as a human who knows what he/she is doing.

But in the end it seems that a scene like you described, if you never knew it was a hound going at you, or which sex it was, then its perhaps a literal approach to ignorance is bliss.

I have helped several girls over the years step into beastiatliy and most were ont he grounds of, "This is so disgusting no way!!". one girl i new many years ago was so taken with not only the idea but her golden retriever Rex that she suggested i marry them before they actually fornicated.

It was an interesting situtation but i went ahead with it and dhse put a scarf on him and would usually draw a lil poor print on her butt as a symbol of their union.

I ask those who are skeptical not to judge those who are interested in this lifestyle. It is un fair on them. most know they have these feelings but try so hard to push them down and feel so bad about it, that when they can finnaly bring it out into the open they are very self concious about it.

If someone enjoys something and finds another who will help them let them be :)

for me personally. it is neither a turn on nor a turn off. People in general have things that peak curiosity and interest them its the way people are. If we go on the assumption that the animal in question isn't being physically harmed or forced who am I or anyone else to say its "wrong" or "sick". Before we all start casting stones remember that not to long ago same sex interactions were considered "sick" and "wrong". ANYWAY we are all kinky people in our own way right? so show some love for your fellow kinksters.
*HUGS* to all the kinky people!!!!

First off, i dont care what anybody dose behind closed doors but or me i would never do it, i am not into it but hey to reach his or hers own. Yet, i will give my reason in not being into it and forme this one is a good reason, you cant ask the animal if they want to have sex, therefore since you do know what the animal wants.. you might have to think of it as your forcing the animal in to something it dose not want to do .. and i am not into that idea...yes its a slipery slope logic but i will take it back if someone disproves me on it.

When I was a wee lass (about nine years old) I had a boxer. I came from the shower, went into my bedroom, bent over to get my panties and the boxer licked me. He was neither forced, nor enticed, he just did it.

Of course, at nine, I was shocked. I jumped and turned abruptly to smack his snout, reprimanding him with "bad dog!"

I don't know if this disproves your idea, dude, but I am of the opinion that some dogs just do things like that. I can't tell you how many times a male dog humped my leg or stuck it's nose in my crotch. OMG! How terribly embarrassing.:eek:

Having had a 150#+ male, un-neutered Dobe, I can assure you that you don't have to "ask" what the critter wants, nor do you have to "lure" him to do it. I do reccommend that if you wish to get in his way that you either a: be bigger and prepared to combat him for it, or b: be the one that he KNOWS is in control! A horny dog, much less a large horny dog, knows what he wants, where it is and what to do. He may need help hitting his target (they don't seem to watch, just hump) especially if there is a big difference in leg length. But otherwise...stand back and out from under...unless you enjoy that perspective.

the Snark.

ps. I'll NEVER abuse an animal. But if they aren't objecting to what they're doing, I might watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OttifantSir

As my status reads, I am exploring all sexuality. I have seen movies and pictures of this, and it turned me on greatly. For me it was the submissiveness of the women being taken by a dog, a horse, a snake, etc. It also turned me on to see how much cum a dog or a horse can spray onto a woman. I love cumshots and bukkake in almost any way, and seeing a woman trying to gulp down almost a pint of horse cum is equally impressing and exciting to me.

---

For the time being I wouldn't dare to suck an animal or swallow dog- or horsecum. I think that is very nasty and far too nasty for me.
But I ind the idea of being forced to do this a very thrilling fantasy. I love to imagine myself being the one to be made to do it and read stories about it. I am not so much in porn movies but I have seen some of these and they were "entertaining" :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDeSade

Fatnassy, you are correct. Instead of sentient I should have used the term sapient. Sentient organisms can feel, but only sapient organisms act with willful judgement.

---

The DeSade hit the nail on the head. This is the basis for debate in a nutshell.

Animals have sex driven by instinct. Humans can control their sexual impulses (for the most part, lol).

Okay, so this thread was started 2 and a half years ago, but I thought I could my 2 euro-cents.

Sex with animals has been known to happen for as long ago as during the height of the Egyptian and Greek cultures.

I myself enjoy stories where (human) females have sex with animals, preferably dogs or horses. I find it one of the ultimate degradations. Of course, it's fantasy. I wouldn't stick my pecker in anything else but a human (female, again) and I wouldn't be too keen on my girlfriend having an afair with our neighbour's dog.

Speaking of neighbours. I knew a woman once, in the neighbourhood where I lived at the time, who had sex with her dog, a Great Dane (which in fact is a German Dog). After a while, the dog got harder and harder to handle, until it became right-out agressive towards the woman.

It must have been an alpha-male which couldn't live with this female not acting quite like the dog thought she should act.

She got really intimidated by her dog. It went as far that the dog wouldn't let her out of the house at times, or really 'insisting' on wanting to have sex.

She had to let the dog be put down in the end, because it became a real danger to not only her, but towards everybody who came to the house. Seemed the dog was rather jealous as well.

Animal rights? Sure. But it's not only a question of animal rights. It's also about Humans not quite understanding what they're getting into, sometimes. I mean, what do we know what goes on in an animal's mind?

The relationship is also a lot like with people: sometimes they like each other, sometimes they don't. When a human doesn't like another human, they avoid each other. Animals usually confront each other, especially when living on each other's turf.


Also, there's a theory doing the rounds that AIDS was transmitted from Bonono monkeys to humans via sexual intercourse. Bonobos are subject to the same type of HIV/AIDS infections as Humans... so, who knows.


JJ

well it's not my thing to do, but if your going to do it well that would be between you and the animal i guess.... *grin*

:wave:

I have my own trained male k9 and quite often go out to couples where the Dom wants the sub bound, gagged and forced to take the dog. Of course i speak to both parties first to see they know whats involved. To clarify, i dont force my boy to have sex with women, he displayed his own willingness to mate with a human female with no prompting from me at a very early age and has had lots of fun time since. Our life style is just a little different to yours and we 'love' our animals just as you 'love' and cherish your subs.

:p

The one difference we use in defending BDSM being tantamount to abuse in vanilla courts, both those of law and public, is consent.

Now so long as whatever is happening is happening between consenting parties (no matter how sick, perverted yada yada yada is in someones opinion) is your private thing.

But when one of the parties is incapable of giving consent...we are talking about rape and criminal behaviour.

Animals, children, corpses....I am sorry, but that is morally indefensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

The one difference we use in defending BDSM being tantamount to abuse in vanilla courts, both those of law and public, is consent.

Now so long as whatever is happening is happening between consenting parties (no matter how sick, perverted yada yada yada is in someones opinion) is your private thing.

But when one of the parties is incapable of giving consent...we are talking about rape and criminal behaviour.

Animals, children, corpses....I am sorry, but that is morally indefensible.

---

Hmmm. A very adament position. These three things are also on my off-limits list but for the sake of arguement, let me ask you this (and not relating to children, no arguement there, we just need to define "child" as age alone is insufficient, noting the age of consent varies by country, including "western" and/or "first world" countries,)...

1) Are you a strict vegetarian? Do your animals consent to be your meat? Your leather? Even your pet? How would beastiality be any different? In fact, it's far less harmful to the animal. My neighbors dog never asked for my consent when he tried to hump my leg... Should the dog be put down for attempted rape? ;)

2) What if someone with a necro-kink made a specific arrangement for his/her corpse to be used sexually after his/her death? That would qualify as consent would it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

1) Are you a strict vegetarian? Do your animals consent to be your meat? Your leather? Even your pet?

---

Actually, I am a strict vegetarian and I dont wear leather. I have cats rescued from abandonment living in my house, but I dont think of them as "less", in fact I sometimes think I am their pet, ;).

But I do agree with your argument...if an animal apparently has enough intelligence to "consent" to intercourse as some here have claimed and I would bet most of them are omnivores, how can then they rationalize eating their sex partners or at least their relatives? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

In fact, it's far less harmful to the animal. My neighbors dog never asked for my consent when he tried to hump my leg... Should the dog be put down for attempted rape? ;)

---

Less harmful than what? The intelligence of dogs can be compared to a two year old child, if a two year old child cant legally consent to intercourse how can a dog?

As for your other question....Dogs are pack animals. They understand social structure and obligations, and are capable of interacting with other members of the society, which for "house dogs" means humans. If they have been raised, much like toddlers, to see their certain behaviors rewarded for being cute....that still doesn't mean that they understand complexities of human sexuality or that they would voluntarily seek this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

2) What if someone with a necro-kink made a specific arrangement for his/her corpse to be used sexually after his/her death? That would qualify as consent would it not?

---

Without going into moral, legal and mental health dilemma which I am ambivalent about (I had a thread about snuff once actually)....yes, in your example that would qualify as consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

Actually, I am a strict vegetarian and I dont wear leather. I have cats rescued from abandonment living in my house, but I dont think of them as "less", in fact I sometimes think I am their pet, ;).

---

Then you indeed do have "the right" to make your arguement, but anyone who says that beastiality is wrong because animals can't consent and then chomps down on a steak is a hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

But I do agree with your argument...if an animal apparently has enough intelligence to "consent" to intercourse as some here have claimed and I would bet most of them are omnivores, how can then they rationalize eating their sex partners or at least their relatives? :p

---

Yep, an equally hollow assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damyanti

Less harmful than what?

---

Less harmfull than being consumed. The two sentences taken together were perhaps less implicit than I assumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Then you indeed do have "the right" to make your arguement, but anyone who says that beastiality is wrong because animals can't consent and then chomps down on a steak is a hypocrite.

---

I apologize for getting off subject and don't mean to attack or offend Ozme - but isn't it (more) accurate to say most (if not all) people are hypocritical to some degree? I tend to think it's a question whether or not they're willing to admit they're hypocrisy, rather than being completely free of such tendencies.

when i was younger i had a girlfriend that was into this
she lived on the outskirts of town and they had alittle farm
i went to see her one saturday and her mom told my she was working in the barn
so i went out there to find her on her hands and knees getting it from behind from her husky
i was dumbfounded to say the least be i was very turned on by the site of it
me and her had not had sex yet we had only been dating for a week or so but after her dog got done she ask if i wanted to be next
i didn't say a word and got behind her and had amazing sex
after that we spent alot of time in her barn with her dog
so i guess i would say that im not againts it its a very good turn on for me
and always remember as long as everyone is happy through it all nothing is wrong with it

Where do we draw the line? If one employs acrobatic semantics one can ostesibily justify and defend even the most egregious behaviour. If someone gives you their permission to murder them becase they no longer want to live is it ok then to kill that person?

So bestiality is the same as murder? That is a rather acrobatic line of semantics itself! If anything that seems objectionable to another is to be forbidden, then this forum will be vacated rather suddenly. This thread has been open for over three years; many have expressed dislike for bestiality, others have supported it. So do we draw the line at rope, but not steel? Whips no longer than 21.5"? Horses but not dogs? Much of the behavior discussed on this forum is illegal in some areas. In other places it is displayed openly. The bigger question becomes WHO gets to draw WHAT line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cathryn Blackthorne

I apologize for getting off subject and don't mean to attack or offend Ozme - but isn't it (more) accurate to say most (if not all) people are hypocritical to some degree? I tend to think it's a question whether or not they're willing to admit they're hypocrisy, rather than being completely free of such tendencies.

---

I missed this comment while I was on the road... eating (etc.) my sex partner... but that's not on topic either. LOL.

Sure Cathryn, everyone has some degree of hypocrisy naturally built in because it is the rare subject/topic that either doesn't, or can't be made to seem to, overlap onto another subject that has similar issue. I, for example, recognize my hypocrisy in some eyes for being pro-death-sentence for criminals and pro-choice on the abortion issue. And certainly the opposite views, taken by many of my "brethren" conservatives are equally hypocritical.

I wasn't so much defending the position as attacking that particular hypocrisy... that it is somehow "worse" to attribute the ability to consent to an animal as an arguement against beastiality while munching on your burger or steak or vindaloo. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by understudy

Where do we draw the line? If one employs acrobatic semantics one can ostesibily justify and defend even the most egregious behaviour. If someone gives you their permission to murder them becase they no longer want to live is it ok then to kill that person?

---

How so acrobatic? You mean if I use a more acceptable word, euthanasia, I am somehow twisting your argument with semantics instead of addressing the real issue? Sorry, but isn't that the point of language? To express ideas, and alternate perspectives, to make a point? And by the same token, to use language skills to point out fallacious arguments as well. Acrobatics? Better acrobatics than the equivalent of online BLUDGEONING. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snark

So bestiality is the same as murder?

---

Well, some theologians might think so. ;)

Quote:

---

That is a rather acrobatic line of semantics itself!

---

My point too.

Quote:

---

If anything that seems objectionable to another is to be forbidden, then this forum will be vacated rather suddenly. This thread has been open for over three years; many have expressed dislike for bestiality, others have supported it. So do we draw the line at rope, but not steel? Whips no longer than 21.5"? Horses but not dogs? Much of the behavior discussed on this forum is illegal in some areas. In other places it is displayed openly. The bigger question becomes WHO gets to draw WHAT line.

---

And of course, that's the whole point of the argument. At least have a consistant position. Calling the kettle black is a common fault, even amongst us kinksters.

Nice post snark.

Thank you, Wiz

I am trying to catch up on threads but readily admit that I have no time to read thru all of these replies...in fact, I only read the first few, so if I am echoing anyone, sorry. I just wanted to hurry up and put in my thoughts before I have to leave.

One of the differences between the animals and us is we make choices.

For instance, if a man or woman gets aroused, we do NOT HAVE to screw the next person that comes along. We can control ourselves.

If a man gets a hard on, he does not have to stick it into the next inter or intra species hole that he sees. A dog does. It's not willingness, lust, romance-- It's instinct. He has no choice.

If you train and/or entice that dog to have sex with you (or any person else), it's not even just instinctual reaction to scents and such any more. It's rape!

Hell, I'm not even saying that that's Wrong!

I absolutely love a good steak, wearing leather, and getting spanked with leather. So, basically, even though I am not doing the slaughtering myself, I am reaping the benefits of wholesale cow murder and very much enjoying those benefits. And will do so til the day I become plant fertizer.

So who the hell am I to condemn dog or horse or hippo rape if I am all for the murder of pigs, cows, buffalo (which is VERY good eating btw), etc ?!

I'm just saying, please, let's be honest here and not talk, like I saw on the first pages, like there is any consent or any of the other prerequisites we attribute to our relationships and lifestyles, when we are discussing fucking animals of either gender by men or women.

good point thank you

As you said, you haven't read the whole thread. But if animals copulate purely by instinct, then whether it's with another animal or a human it is rape by your description. Many vegetarians would consider eating meat to constitute murder. So, if it's rape, then meat is murder! It is very difficult to ascribe legality (or illegality) to any instinctual behavior, whether with humans or other animals. Under Sharia, what we would describe as rape is immoral fornication by the female if she can't produce 4 male witnesses in her defense. Who draws what line...?

it would be a good point except for that the female animal is not making a choice EITHER...when she "entices" the sex it is not willingness, romance, lust, love either

it is PURE instinct... it is her time ... neither of them have a choice.. when we "are in season" we do not have to jump on the first hard penis we come across... we can control ourselves... if you want to get absolutely technical then is not rape when one of the participants has a choice and the other doesnt? animals then dont rape each other since they are BOTH acting on instinct... neither can control themselves. We can!

men and women have sex by choice (whether by our desires or implicit consent with our mate/partner)...unless its rape of course. i cannot speak to shariah or any other custom, but i will say out loud if BOTH parties are not acting with those conditions, i am calling it rape.

when a human takes advantage of an animal of either gender and trains it or entices it to have sex with us by whatever means we divise when WE have the choice and they dont, its rape

i addressed the vegiterian aspect by already readily admitting that i am condoning the mass murder of pigs, cows, buffalo, ostritch etc. because i will eat them, wear them, and hopefully be spanked by them til i expire.

i also readilly admitted that i am not even saying animal rape is wrong !

im just saying lets call it what it is and not "justify" it by attributing anything like "consent" to the act... do it dont do it, but lets certainly not equate what we do by choice to animal mating... we do what we do because unless we too are raped, we made the decision to... whether by mutual lust, desire, depravity (just kidding lol...sort of), what have you... animals dont

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I view rape as a violent assault of another person - usually female. The instigator uses violent force to demonstrate control, inflict pain, usually both physical and mental. The sexual aspect provides humiliating, tortuous dominance over the other. Any sexual gratification derived is a manifestation of the sociopathic nature of the attacker. This hardly describes an act of copulation between a willing female (or male) and a male animal. It could describe such an act between a male human and a female animal, though I don't believe that is the nature of this thread.

By the way, describing Sharia as a "custom" is like describing the US Constitution as a "historically interesting document". Both describe the basis of rule of law, holding the literal power of life or death over individuals within it's domain. Both set the principles for societal behavior and establish governmental relationships with the citizens within.