Bestiality

you are describing the extreme end of a rape "scale" for lack of another word

let me illustrate

a woman (just for the purpose of this example... i know it happens to men too) is unknowingly given a drug

taken to a house and given a candle lit bubble bath, laid down on 3000 count egyptian sheets. he goes down on her, gently carressing, slow tender sex with a condom follows, she is tucked in to sleep, woke with a kiss and breakfast in bed.

not a mark on her to show from the experience

it was rape! he had a choice of what he was doing... she didnt.

i would never persume to think when a human wants to have sex with any species of animal, that he or she meant to harm it, torture, or what have you

but i dont care how scrumptious a biscuit, the dog (for example) is given when its over, it was rape cause one party (the human) had a choice... the animal didnt

really tho, my whole purpose was to point out that we should not be talking like the animal has any consent in the matter ... not whether its right or wrong or moral etc

Yes, it was rape. It was also a tender act of brutal control and personal violation. And it was an example of sociopathic behavior. (Actually, that is part of a scenario I am including in a story I am currently writing.) The animal doesn't have a base of morality to distinguish proper behavior. He doesn't care. Actually, he gets his rocks off and generally enjoys the activity whether it's human or dog. (Using a dog as example. Usually horses are more passive with humans than with those of their own species.) The point is that all too often people ascribe human morals and laws to the acts of animals. (In years past animals could be tried for their actions against humans in some cultures.) If you let a dog hump your leg until he climaxes, how different is that from allowing him the use of a human vagina? He doesn't care less...no, actually he prefers the crotch. It's warmer. So it's a matter of consent? On whose behalf? The owner of the leg or the owner of the vagina? My point is that the dog in this case is not being harmed, he will actively participate and return to do it again. He won't go running off and the only instruction necessary is for him to understand that he won't be punished for his actions. Bodily dimensions are different between humans and dogs, so there is a bit of adjustment to be learned, but if you've ever watched a Great Dane with a Beagle (in either direction) you'll see that they learn the adjustment pretty quickly. It isn't cruel (to the dog) to allow a dog to participate in sexual congress with a human. It could certainly be cruel to the human if she didn't want to be there. That's a different thread. As I stated before, which you may or may not have read...having owned a 150#+ un-neutered male Doberman, if he doesn't want to do something he will surely let you know. Likewise he'll let you know if he wants to. And if you disagree you better be a bigger Alpha than he is if you want to win. Fortunately for me...I won. Every time! (Only got bit three times in his life, never broke the skin. His way of making a point, I made a better one.) The concept of it being rape simply because there was no consent given by the dog who not only enjoyed it but will repeat the action every time he gets a chance is to me, a stretch of the term. In your case the woman did not give the consent, not the man. If she had consented but he didn't, but still performed the act would you say that he had been raped? Even if she had been drugged? Rape is an act of force. Gentle or not, tender or not, using a knife or a drug, it is force. I'd love to watch someone try to force a 150# male Dobie do something he doesn't WANT to do. Here's a clue: dial 91 and have a 1 on speed dial.

sigh... i feel like nothing i write is read...i never said the animal is either harmed or isnt getting his jollies. .. i have repeatedly said and now give up... that he ............ has ........................... no ................ choice

i dont care if its a 6 ton elephant.. he can say no when it comes to the instinct he has to act on

amber,

Your definition of rape is your justification for calling it rape. Your frustration lies in that we don't agree with your definition and refuse to merely let you label it as rape because you want your definition to be inviolate. That's the point. We don't agree with your definition.

By the way, using your definition, I was raped. How? Because my sperm was deposited in a woman who claimed she was on the pill. But she lied. She took my sperm into her fertile womb without my consent. She figured a child would force a marriage.

When I found out, and luckily I found out before a child was conceived, I broke it off. Little did I realize I should have had her arrested and charged with rape.

And you're stuck because you have to agree now. She raped me. (If not, your contention that animals are being raped is likewise untenable.)

how is that possibley rape? you both made a choice to engage in sex

you both had a choice... you acted on the choice to have sex... that she lied about a contraceptive did not change the fact that you both acted on a choice to have sex... it was not instinct... neither one of you copulated because you HAD to and neither one of you forced the other. that you took her word for being protected was a mistake and i am just damn glad an unwanted child did not come of it

it was an awful thing she did... and i have heard of pregnancy being used to trap into marriage... thats horrible and immoral... but its not rape

Your description of rape is that one party hasn't given consent. My description is that consent wasn't asked or it was ignored. A woman can acquiesce without giving consent. She doesn't say yes, she doesn't say no, she allows a man access to her crotch. Is that rape? What about the woman who changes her mind half way through? Animals have have no knowledge of the concept of "consent". Male dogs will occasionally attempt to mate with a female that is not in heat. Is it rape? If a male dog energetically and eagerly copulates with a consenting female human, then he is being raped?

We have been reading what you write...but as Oz said, we disagree with your definition.

Clearly (to me,) amber will refine her definition narrowly to conform with her choice of words.

Is it consent if a lie was used to obtain consent? That's like saying I offer you a drink, you consent to take it not knowing it's a rufie and the sex act that followed must not be rape. But I know you'll apply your definition narrowly. I'm not saying this isn't rape, but that your definition, which currently says it isn't rape, will no doubt change again.

Can't have a discussion if you can't even nail down your own definition.

the only thing i can think of is......"woooofffff".. yeah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wicker

the only thing i can think of is......"woooofffff".. yeah

---

...which gives a whole new meaning to prowling the scottish moors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

...which gives a whole new meaning to prowling the scottish moors.

---

it really does

please don't shoot me for not reading all of the 7 pages of posts...

it isn't possible to have a dogs consent in this, regardless of cooperation. It isn't possible. If the creed of this lifestyle is to include consensual, then this act as any act where the other party is not able to consent is not fair.

i do work with animals, and have for a long enough time to know that haircuts and baths and shots may not be consented to either...these as well as being trained not to eat my couch are not things they consent to but are for the good of the animal.

typically dogs do not hump humans for sexual pleasure, it is for dominance. dogs do not approach sex with the same intentions we do and it isn't fair to do this to anything that can't make a competant choice to do what your asking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13'sbadkitty

please don't shoot me for not reading all of the 7 pages of posts...

it isn't possible to have a dogs consent in this, regardless of cooperation. It isn't possible. If the creed of this lifestyle is to include consensual, then this act as any act where the other party is not able to consent is not fair.

i do work with animals, and have for a long enough time to know that haircuts and baths and shots may not be consented to either...these as well as being trained not to eat my couch are not things they consent to but are for the good of the animal.

typically dogs do not hump humans for sexual pleasure, it is for dominance. dogs do not approach sex with the same intentions we do and it isn't fair to do this to anything that can't make a competant choice to do what your asking it.

---

Assuming the dog, or any animal for that matter, is a sentient being. Which for the entire 5 pages is the crux of the argument.

So when a male dog leaves a wet spot on the sofa cushion he's demonstrating his dominance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13'sbadkitty

please don't shoot me for not reading all of the 7 pages of posts...

---

BANG!!

Quote:

---

it isn't possible to have a dogs consent in this, regardless of cooperation. It isn't possible. If the creed of this lifestyle is to include consensual, then this act as any act where the other party is not able to consent is not fair.

i do work with animals, and have for a long enough time to know that haircuts and baths and shots may not be consented to either...these as well as being trained not to eat my couch are not things they consent to but are for the good of the animal.

typically dogs do not hump humans for sexual pleasure, it is for dominance. dogs do not approach sex with the same intentions we do and it isn't fair to do this to anything that can't make a competant choice to do what your asking it.

---

I'll be blunter than ID... though the next two words are strictly mine and not to put them in his mouth.

It's rude and selfish to expect us to say to you exactly what we've already said in the 7 pages, (which I reread, btw, when the topic was bumped again 3 months ago...) If you'd read the thread and said you still have problems with the definition, concept, or circumstances, and told us why, presumably from a fresh perspective and not one hacked to death, I'd be happy to continue. But you didn't.

Which is a shame imo.

I did not mean to offend anyone, i did read quite alot of it, i did see that it was bumped. I honestly did not mean to annoy, i guess that for me i saw the first few and the last page and was just responding. I read where there were words used like rape and sick and i also read where it was said that male dogs do only what they want near the end. I happen to work with animals, as I said and I feel like i had some credible experience. I don't feel like i was either rude or selfish to post that and i didn't ask you to bother explaining to me anything you had posted nor anyone else for that matter. I am completely aware that this thread is long and my apologies for addressing what you felt I had no right to address. I would prefer that if you feel i am rude or selfish, pm me rather than attack me. I don't feel "unfair" is terminology that is hostile and i am not sure of why i received this degree of response. I attempt to be respectful to you and everyone else here and I don't feel i merit that.

ok now i have read all 7 pages on my computer. I see there was pages and pages of either pro or con. I see that some of what i said, you have responded to. I did not bump this, i was reading as I am home sick and bored. I felt that I have some experience with animals that was not argued above, but whatever. I would remove my post if i could but i cant seem to find where the button is on this format.

I apologize for responding. I will attempt to read all of a thread before i post here, and when i can't i will attmpt to not post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

BANG!!

I'll be blunter than ID... though the next two words are strictly mine and not to put them in his mouth.

It's rude and selfish to expect us to say to you exactly what we've already said in the 7 pages, (which I reread, btw, when the topic was bumped again 3 months ago...) If you'd read the thread and said you still have problems with the definition, concept, or circumstances, and told us why, presumably from a fresh perspective and not one hacked to death, I'd be happy to continue. But you didn't.

Which is a shame imo.

---

I'd like to ask two questions:

1) What does it mean that a topic is 'bumped'?

2) I can understand that it is best to read a whole thread before answering, although that can mean hours of reading. But is there any actual rules saying you have to do that?

3) Many topics are sort of ever greens that keep coming back, with new members or new things that arise in connection with them. While it is a good idea to refer to previous threads, is there anything wrong with posting a topic that has already been discussed? After all you can just ignore it.

When a thread has some age on it the title will sink below the newer posts. Responding to a post that has slipped down a few pages "bumps" it back to the top where it can be seen as if it is a newer thread. Which is why some people will see a thread and not realize how long it has been in discussion. And occasionally rehash concepts that were thoroughly shredded already.

I kinda in two minds. One the one hand i have had and do have fantasies about it.
On the other hand Im not sure if i would be able to act out on the idea.
Although im sure Master would like me to. lol.
xxx

Simple solution. Unless it's a hard limit, obey your master. He might lead you into a new experience your enjoy. If you truly hate it, set a hard limit. THAT's why he's the master!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rover

Well its just plain wrong. Most normal (sane) people would thinks its extremely sick and a sign of a twisted and distorted mind.

What is wrong with people??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

---

How does that saying go.. The pot calling the kettle?

In a way, posts like this make me happy, as they provide an opportunity for all readers to consider the subject-matter from diametric perspectives..

For example: whether or not you personally adore beastiality, the liberal application of generalized statements like, "most normal sane people would..." adulterate your intended point of contention.. Who among us is an authority on normality? And even then, how would this individual instantly obtain the general consensus of his peers?

But then, wasn't the point of writing/reading in online forums to inquire upon the general consensus' of the masses, and to weigh our individual perspectives against said 'consensus', thereby provoking thought and growth..?

The general consensus of the masses differs greatly from the consensus of bdsmlibrary members in erotic realms.. Rover, something about bdsm (forgive the imminent pun) tickled your fancy, or else why would you be a contributing member here..? Consider the spectrum of autoerotic mental imagery you (no doubt fervently) cavort through in your mission to cross your own personal "finish" line.. This spectrum ostensibly has it's range from the mundane and benign, to the concupiscent and malign.. In other words, your masturbation material no doubt has a cache pf vanilla imagery and at least a few sex acts the general populace would find hugely distasteful..

None of us, here, has the authority to edify on the basis of the consensus of the general populace, which desires constitute an

Quote:

---

extremely sick and a sign of a twisted and distorted mind

---

Even in my most open and illustrative moments, there's a selection of dark thoughts that I hold back from view.. I applaud those members who have contributed openly about their fantasies and personal experiences in this thread..

ps - your liberal application of question marks, followed by exclamation points adds to the overall intactness of your post.. A++++++++++++++!!!!!

I don't know if I have anything substantive to add. However many years ago I found an online brochure for a Caribbean Island that specialized in this. They bred three types of dogs, Doberman Pincher, Rottweilers, and I forget the third. The deal was a single woman, or a couple either Male/female or Female/female could come to the island. They would be treated to a show and tell involving girls that would show proper technique. Then a dog would be picked out, and time would be given to acclimate the new O/owner(s) and the dog. Then at the end of the time (week or week end, I forget) The dog was taken home. Clearly the dogs knew exactly what was expected from them. In fact bred to this purpose.

The odd thing was...I found about this on an animal rights website. They clearly were against the idea.

I have long since lost the book mark for this, and have been unable to find it again. Nor can I recall exactly the website I first found this on.

I am sure the reason that single Men were not allowed to visit the island in question is, they would have been overwhelmed to the point of the island sinking. Okay a bit facetious there, but clearly they were trying to limit visitors to the O/ones truly interested and dedicated.

It's a dog's life...