SL Letter of the Day: You Guys Are Animals


There's also chemical castration if you find your own predilection disturbing or frustrating and want to suppress it.
Sick and wrong. See someone. Leave the animals alone. They are not for your sexual pleasure. Medicate yourself to the point where were you to slam your dick in the door, you wouldn't feel it.
This is why we need sex robots.

Also, Dan, the pork and beef you ate probably weren't cruelly tortured every second of their miserable lives. Almost all factory farmed meat (except poultry) starts out at ranches and farms and so forth where they basically hang around in the sun eating grass. It isn't until the last six months or year or so of their lives that they're transported to a feedlot to be tortured to death. Just sayin...
@3, I feel much the same way, but within my lifetime, most people said the same thing about gay sex. Many still do. Which tells me that our immediate, visceral and emotional reaction can't be trusted here (may be right, but isn't trustworthy).
Can't he try to work on developing a network of close friends to handle the social aspect of his life and need for connection, and just masturbate to fantasies of what he's attracted to?
Not every desire gets to be realized. Even if the desire is to find a human person. Many of us have to make do.
Just move to Enumclaw, it's all good.
There's a whole subset of people who do doggie and/or pony play. I'm assuming that the follow-up e-mails between Dan and RUFF revealed that Mr. R wasn't turned on by that particular idea? Seems like it would be safer and morally/socially more acceptable.
@4 - How do you figure the dogs are "cruelly tortured every second of their miserable lives? First of all, who in the world has sex every second?? Do you have the slightest reason to think these animals would be mistreated in between sex events - i.e. almost all of the time? Second, since we have established this is dog-on-man sex, the dog has to be, well, kind of in the mood himself for it to work. Since dogs presumably have no Freudian superego criticizing their choice of sex objects I see no reason at all to assume there is any torture or even displeasure involved.

What are you talking about?

Did you read the whole post? Dan's response too?

Re-read that. Then re-read my comment. That should (hopefully) clear things up.

Okay, somehow I missed this the first time: Dan confirmed w/the letter writer that he wanted to be fucked BY dogs, not fuck dogs. That makes all the difference. I disagree that fucking a dog is the moral equivalent to eating an animal that has been bred for slaughter/consumption. A dog kept in someone's house and repeatedly fucked against it's will or interest is clearly abuse - mental and physical. Pavolv's experiments were with dogs, after all - and a negative or series of negative, forced experiences of this type, and the dog will run in terror from you for the rest of it's life. It would be abuse, clear and simple. I just can't see a dog readily and willingly taking on the average guy's cock, unless it's perhaps a Great Dane, with what I assume would be a rear more accommodating of a human penis.

But that's not what we're talking about here. Unless the guy was just covering his ass, so to speak. This dude wants to be fucked BY the dog.

My only question then would be, how in all hell can you get a dog to do that? When I was a kid, dogs ran rampant in the neighborhood, and the male dogs were not "fixed" - only the females, so yes, they tended to hump pillows and people's calves. But mounting and actually penetrating someone - of a different species - in the ass? Or does the guy has to be on top for this to work?

Feel free to not answer any of these questions.

Whether or not the dog is into it is irrelevant, as they can't give informed consent. I imagine many 14 year old boys would be okay with some lady blowing them, but it's still considered a sex crime because you can't really give informed consent at 14.
RUFF, get some porn that works for you (CGI can do wonders without involving any actual animals), get a sex doll or something, maybe even consider becoming a--cringe--furry, if the interplay of canine and anthro traits gets you off.
Just don't do actual dogs, and don't hide in the bushes near a dog park with your dick in your hand.
@5 : I know you didn't mean to equate homosexuality with bestiality. There is no way a horse or a rabbit or a Great Dame can agree to have sex with a human. It is thrust upon them. The more proper equivalency would be rape wherein one party says no or doesn't know what is happening to him/her. Domesticated animals are wards of our care and dependent upon us for feeding and healthcare. And like you don't fuck your daughter because, after all, you pay for her room and board, animals aren't obliged to taking abuse because we pay the bills to raise them.

Two women or two men attracted to each other used to be regarded as a mental illness - that's absolutely true. But both women and both men, if they were of the age of consent, agreed to that relationship and further, sought it out.

The argument that homosexuals used to be considered sick just like people into animals (but someday who knows) doesn't work because consent is missing. Most think incest is pretty fucking sick too, but it can be consensual. Bestiality can't every be. The basset hound doesn't know what's going on - like perhaps a severely mentally disabled person. That would be the better analogy.
So, I get the concept of informed consent, and I fully realize that animals are incapable of giving it, as it's defined legally.

But my problem with the application of informed consent to animals is... if animals can never give informed consent, is all animal sex then defined as rape? Not human-on-animal sex, but animal-on-animal sex. Are animal breeders rape enablers?

The idea of informed consent, it seems to me, is consent combined with the full knowledge of the consequences of sexual interaction. For humans, that includes pregnancy, social stigma, and a whole slew of emotional reactions that range from very positive to very, VERY negative, depending on the circumstance.

For a dog, or any animal, I don't see how the 'informed' part really applies. If it wants to hump something, it will, and sometimes that will result in puppies, and other times it won't. I don't know if there's the same risk of emotional trauma that a human could be subject to.

Disclaimer: I almost posted anonymously, because of my username. It's a funny picture, and that's all. I am neither a zoophile nor a dog owner. Carry on.
@14: As you know, non-human mammals don't choose to have sex. Nor do they do it solely for pleasure. The females go into estrous when they are primed for fertilization and it is irresistible to the male of the species. Some females resist for a while until they find a suitable mate. Others merely relent. That isn't informed consent, but it is ultimately consent. Is it fair? Don't know. Ask Mother Nature. Not sure that a non-human can ever give informed consent, but a human forcing sex upon an animal is abusive. Of that I am positive.
@11- train the dog is how you get him to do that, and no, the human is rarely (ever?) on top. It's not hard, and most any male dog is happy to participate. So I'm told by others in RUFF's shoes who have done exactly as Dan suggests.
I'm not into animals in the least, but I still fail to see the 'torment' for a male animal particpating in penetrating a human (or a pillow), other than pure human philosophy. Nobody is forcing that pooch to hump the pillow, leg, hole or whatever- it CHOOSES to do said behavior for its own gratification. Don't see the problem here.
@14 - And yet you merrily use that poor dog's picture without his or her consent? How dare you, you monster!
In my view, it's wrong to molest animals, advise people to molest animals, or rationalize/normalize the molestation of animals. Having a dog fuck you, or fucking the dog, is not an acceptable thing to do even if you think "the dog likes it". Please don't be an animal raper. I really hope you get help. Just my opinion.
@15 - Just for the record, dolphins and bonobos have sex for fun.
Please kill yourself. You are defective. Seriously.
We get consent from humans for sex because we get consent from humans for everything. Talking about consent when talking about animals is absurd and silly.

We routinely sterilize them against their will for fucksake. Or, if they're lucky, we breed them with a partner of our choosing then sell their children on the internet and pocket the money.

If we want to compare this to human sex both of those would be a much more substantial violation than this sick fuck letting a dog mount him.

I do feel bad for the poor bastard letter writer. What a thing to be afflicted with. He didn't apparently choose this, and can't help his attraction, I guess. What in hell is he to do? If therapy is hopeless, I mean? It's pretty fucking sad, that even if he does find a dog situation that works for him (a dog that wants to and does fuck him on a regular-enough basis), his chances of finding a human mate that he can be honest with about this, somebody to share his life with, seem slim. Or maybe not - there must be beastiality kink personals, right? But maybe not a lot of women in that community?

He really ought to check out furries. They're just people with imagination and not all of them even do it for the sex. Some just do it for fun role play, no different than stepping into any other role - samarai, firefighter, hooker, schoolteacher, french maid, president. Some people play make-believe as kids, others as grannies, still others as dogs or horses or werewolves or mutant aliens. It's not a big deal. Find some furries before investing in a fence and a well-hung dog. Other people are much more helpful, understanding, and you can actually build a relationship with them. Plus, if you're discovered and outed, the social approbation for being a furry isn't nearly as bad as that for fucking your dog.

(Although I must admit, a lot of people are bizarrely prejudiced against furries, treating them like they're sick fucks or pathetic or something. I don't get that at all.)
Animals don't ponder the consequences of their actions, feel guilt or shame or ask if god exists. They just do their thing, be it fuck, eat their shit, or chew on your shoes. "Consent"? Anthropomorphizing animals and putting human morality on them is crazy.
Eh, if he finds a dog that'll fuck him, big whoop. I hope he and Fido have found happiness.

(I know we've discussed the barbs before, but jeebus, what about the barbs?!)
As inherently squicky as bestiality is, I have to agree with @24. While it is reasonable to say that we shouldn't cause pain to animals or unduly worsen their quality of life, the animal is not going to suffer psychological damage from a breach of consent the way a person would. (At least, assuming it's the animal doing the fucking. I have no doubt an animal cornered and screwed by a human would probably suffer stress and physical harm.)

And, in contrast, the factory farming, animal testing, and painful surgery on domestic animals to make them more compatible to living with humans (removing claws, scent glands, reproductive organs...) seem like a much more reasonable target for those concerned about the welfare of animals.
If, despite your own personal feeling, you think you should advice it, don't ask the man to hide his relationship with the dog. Because if it's not wrong in a neutral moral environment, hiding is only provisional at a particular social setting. A coming-out-of-fences would be the next phase, maybe even during our lifetime.

If you think hiding it forever is the way to go, then it's something that's unadvisable.

It's either/or, Dan.
Completely agree with you Dan. And I'm glad that you published such a controversial opinion.

As you said, if I'm willing to eat animals that were killed for my eating pleasure, then I don't have a right to pass moral judgment on someone who wants to get fucked by an animal. Even someone who wants to fuck an animal, although that's significantly worse.
@27, not true. It's kinda acceptable for the dude to fuck animals in the privacy of his home, but not go public for two reasons.
1. It is generally advisable that people avoid being seen doing things that will get them completely alienated from their friends, family and neighbors. This would clearly have that effect. It could also put him in legal trouble, depending on where he lives.
2. If you really aren't hurting anyone else and your silence imposes tremendous costs on your well-being, then you may want to try slowly exposing others to your activities. But in this case, he IS harming something else. Not all harm is created equal of course, and if you can tolerate harming animals in any of the other socially acceptable ways that Dan mentioned, then you don't have the moral authority to look down on the harm this guy is imposing; however, since his actions AREN'T victimless, his behavior is not going to be so easily explained away to the incredulous/disgusted.
@usename seems to be coming from a place where fucking an animal means the animal's a victim, and not a harm-free participant. Well, in that scenario it is entirely wrong and anyone wishing to do so should simply refrain, no questions asked.

As for Dan's advice, I stick by my point. Anything that's acceptable in private should eventually lead to a soceity where it is acceptable doing /acknowledging in public. If we can't envision a society where we can do that, there must be something wrong with the deed to start with, and we shouldn't be contribting to normalizing it in the first place. Trying to do both is a kind of hypocricy.
Especially, if the reason cited by pro-LGBT but anti-Zoophelia people, i.e. you can't build meaningful relationships with animals, turns out to be wrong, then, in a world where we accept it behind the fence but not in broad daylight becomes very wrong as well. Then we must all strive for a soceity where it does not alienate people, or create legal issues. I'm not sure that's someplace Dan would like to go, but he's in fact opening up that discussion. He should at least have the guts to admit what he's doing.

Instead of creating a world where increasing the use of animals for our pleasure, how about we change the current world to reach a place where the use of animals is minimal?
It's one thing to add some meat to your diet or befriending someone from another species etc, but the extent to which we have gone in regard to human's relationship to animals - the extreme meatification of diet, the breeding of animals solely for leather, the complete domestification to the extent of entirely conrolling their sex organs etc - it's wrong, requires inspection, and I'm sorry to say but seems very much a recent and western phenomena.
Instead of saying 'We eat/wear animals, therefore let's also be OK with fucking animals,' let's figure out ways to reduce/eliminating eating/wearing animals.
I hope everyone who is dead set against this is a vegan, because otherwise you need to STFU.
I'm glad that other people aren't buying this "consent" argument. It's really poor logic. For instance, it has the causation completely wrong. Children "not being able to consent" isn't what makes child molestation harmful. Rather, child molestation is harmful in and of itself whether the child could consent or not, and we make a big deal of the consent issue because it stacks on top of the inherent harm.

And we use that argument consistently in all situations where children could be exposed to harm. For instance, we don't let the military recruit children, because joining the military is reasonably likely to be harmful whether the individual can consent or not. Conversely, we don't worry too much about whether children consent in situations that we expect to be beneficial to the child: for example, we don't ask kids for their consent before sending them to school. We don't say that school is harmful because the children can't give informed consent, even though we legally force children to go to school without asking whether they consent or not, precisely because we don't think that they can give informed consent, and we think that school is good for them whether they realize it or not, so tough shit if they don't like it.

So the claim that "they can't give informed consent, therefore it's harmful" isn't logically valid. If it was, school would be harmful. Instead, if you can show something is harmful, and if you can also show that the people being subjected to that harmful something can't reasonably consent, that's doubly bad. But you have to establish the "harmful" part independently of the "can't give informed consent" part.

By contrast, we treat animals as chattel slaves in every situation but one, and we routinely force great harm on food animals in particular without worrying about their consent at all. But somebody does something with a dog that causes people to go "squick" but doesn't cause any visible harm to the dog, and all of a sudden people start claiming to care about whether the chattel slave gives consent.

BTW, legal "consent" is a social construct, like gender. Its definition is constantly changing. It doesn't necessarily, and shouldn't necessarily, have anything to do with whether or not someone or something can give consent in reality. Legally treating minors as if they can't give consent has as much to do with the difficulties of establishing, in a court of law, whether the minor gave consent or not, as it does with whether the minor could understand the situation or not.

I haven't spent much time around dogs, but I've been around (neutered) cats a lot and it's pretty obvious that they do or do not give consent to being petted by specific people in much the same way that people do or don't consent to having sex with specific other people. Coyotes and wolves pair-bond. So I think it's pretty plausible that adult dogs might decide whether they want to have sex with a particular individual or not. (I do speculate it's unlikely that they'd pick a human over another dog, given a reasonable selection of other dogs...)

We don't generally give dogs the option of having partners, let alone choosing their partners themselves, so we don't see it, but I read a book by a woman who kept an unneutered female dog. The book was basically a biography of that dog and her family. There was one scene where a male dog, who had been "hanging around" with the female dog, saw her with their puppies for the first time. The author described the male dog as looking stunned... and then he did the responsible dog daddy thing and went over to the puppies and barfed in front of them, because if you're a wolf daddy or a jackal daddy that's the way you bring food home for your family. The author wrote that the human family had to move away from that city for career reasons, and that her dog was heartbroken over not seeing that male again and was sad for the rest of her life. So no, dogs aren't just automatons that detect other dogs in heat and fuck indiscriminantly.

I once worked for a couple of hours with factory-farmed chickens. Chickens aren't too bright, and I have no reason to think that they knew that the truck we were taking them to was going to take them to the soup factory, but it was obvious that even those chickens wanted to be somewhere else, anywhere else. The thought of doing that to pigs, in particular, which are smart enough to know what's up, breaks my heart. I just don't get how you guys who are so opposed to bestiality because the alleged lack of consent of this hypothetical dog is such a big deal, while at the same time you don't care about the lack of consent of every food animal, ever.

In case it's not evident, I think that beastiality should be legal for the same reasons I think that homosexuality should be legal: I've never seen any evidence it, in general, harms the participants, and just because someone else is squicked out by it is no reason to oppress the participants. If I could ban something, I'd ban factory farming.
It's not just an issue of 'consent'. It's an issue of long-term consequences.

Because what a zoophile does is *teach the dog that this is acceptable behavior with humans*.

You can't be 100% sure that the dog won't ever encounter the wrong person -- for instance, what if something happens to you, and the dog gets adopted out?

A human with inappropriate sexual desires has many options -- suppress them entirely, get therapy, get a partner who's willing to roleplay, become a criminal. A dog with inappropriate sexual desires *will* act on them, and be killed for it.
@25 Barbs? I think you have your animals mixed up. It's felines that have barbs on their penises, not canines. The barbs trigger ovulation in female cats during mating.

Canines have a "knot"--a bulb on the penis--that ties the male and female together during ejaculation. The tie can last for up to half an hour. It's why it's dangerous to try to separate mating dogs, because you could seriously injure them.

I have no idea how that would affect dog-on-man bestiality. If it were physically possible for the same thing to happen with a human, I shudder to imagine the kind of damage that could result. A human anus is very different from a canine's vagina, obviously.
@34: I've heard of people having to go to the hospital to get the dog out of their anus/vagina as a result. Must be hella awkward.
If you can convince the dog to screw you, heck, go ahead.
ahhhh chemical castration and a shrink, please!

What if you adopt a dog that doesn't want to have sex with you? How many dogs do you have to bring home from the shelter before you find the one that works for you? Animal shelters are not dating services! What sort of bad behavior have you taught to the dogs you're not sexually compatible with? What if your dog tries out some of his new tricks when you take him for a walk, with a neighbor kid? May well be the sort of behavior that gets a dog euthanized, once he is out of your protection. Better make sure your dog doesn't dig under that tall fence, and that you never need the services of a dog walker or kennel!