SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One


I think this one is BS
Take a swig, pass it down:…
Fake fake fake fake fake. But earnest.
Dan, why do you only get religious when this type of shit comes up? Athiesm is good enough for all the rest of the time. Now you turn to God? Maybe FIDO should have sent along a video.
It has to be fake. Make it so.
I'm a hypocrite—I've admitted it. I'm a very religious man... when I'm on airplane, and when letters about men fucking dogs arrive in the morning mail. Then I'm all...

"Let us pray..."
Well, you know, Dan, even if THIS letter is fake, you were reaching out to all the dog-fuckers and want-their-boyfriends-to-be-dog-fuckers-along-with-them-too that are out there and just not writing in. It's a public service, really.

As with so many of these letters, I find myself thinking: "and I can't even meet a guy I want to see a second time; some people have all the luck."
I disagree with Dan's advice here. If true, I'd offer that she should "agree" to some horrible scenario, set it up per the horrible shitheads request, then call the cops to have him arrested for animal cruelty.
@7: No atheists in foxholes, eh?
...and that sounds very bad given the current discussion of human-canine bestiality.
Well that was certainly a way to kick off my weekend... thanks for that.
Well, uh, bless her heart?
Dogs fall under the "vulnerable and unable to give informed consent" rule that applies to those populations that are too young, under coercion, imprisoned, feeble minded, etc., or in whatever situation that makes it impossible to give fully informed and appropriate consent as equals for participation in a sexual act. It is an a form of abuse.
Hey, it's only non-normative sex.
And to think that after years of marriage and a few months being single I am unable so far to find a quality girlfriend. Apparently I have a long way to go in lowering my standards for potential mates if I choose. A long, long way.
It's fake. But the problem is somewhere, someone out there is... well... god... see this right here is why bourbon was invented.
As long as he doesn't want to marry Fido, I have no problem.
Here's the deal. An animal can't consent. Much like children can't consent. There are very real legal reasons why marriage was not going to spread to involve those two groups.

Why on earth would you want to be with a man who has no reluctance to stick his dick in someone who doesn't want it. Do you think you will want to have children around him? Again, this is a person WHO.DOES.NOT.REQUIRE.CONSENT.TO.FUCK.A.HELPLESS.BEING.

Run away. And frankly, call the ASPCA. Good golly. If you see someone abusing and raping something, DO SOMETHING!

This woman deserves to be in this pickle. I have never been so astounded to see someone be completely unable to understand the difference between a harmless kink and animal rape.
8 tits or gtfo
@20: I just spit water on the screen.
Thanks for that.
Argh! Curse you #10! Beat me to it!

Having trouble imagining a dog that wouldn't turn around and rip his throat out for even trying it, though.

Also, and most important, I wonder whether he is putting you at risk of arrest yourself if the authorities ever caught you with animal porn on your device or in your accounts. (I assume animal porn is illegal?) You should tell him the next time he sends you any of that shit, you are going to kick him to the curb so fast he will count himself lucky if the door is open before you put his ass through it.
Am I the only one who does not think the LW is a woman? Because - to me - the idea that the partner would want the LW to get involved in the kink with him would be to actively ... uh ... participate whereas it wouldn't be the same thing if the partner was trying to get a woman into it.

On the scale of Zero to GGG, this falls somewhere in the range of Saturn. In any case, let me add my prayers to the hope that it's a fake.
@19: Are you sure Letter Writer is a woman?
Put me in the camp of those who think the LW is not female. (Just hard to imagine the dog fetisher imagining he could in any way convince a female partner to be an active part of the kink. NOT that it actually should/would be any easier to convince a male partner, but... )
Alternate title: "MUST LOVE DOGS"
The letter writer is most certainly not a woman. If he exists. Which I'm hoping he doesn't.
@14 I agree that it's a form of abuse, but here's the problem with your argument: Animals cannot give informed consent to being bred to another of their own kind. They cannot (and do not!) give informed consent to having their balls chopped off. They cannot (and do not) give informed consent to being imprisoned inside of houses, fenced yards, barns, pastures, etc. They cannot (and do not) give informed consent to being euthanized when they are old or sick. They cannot (and do not) give informed consent being killed and eaten.

If we care about the consent of animals, then there's a whole hell of a lot of our society that is fucked up beyond belief. Because we don't think it's appropriate to breed children or the mentally disabled together, to imprison them in crates when we go to bed at night so they don't shit on the rug, to sterilize them, to euthanize them, or to eat them.

There are a lot of good reasons not to accept dog fucking (such as their genitals are physically different from human genitals and they cannot communicate verbally, so the chances of harm to them or the human are high; psychological harm is very likely, since dogs do not have human sex drives or attitudes; behavioral problems leading to the dog being ineligible for rehoming are very likely, etc.). But if you're talking about informed consent instead of those issues, then you're either a hypocrite or else arguing that animals should be granted the legal protections human children have. Because humanity does a hell of a lot worse to animals without consent than fuck them.
Other letters have involved people wanting to be fucked or licked by a dog...Since an animal doesn't care about the ick factor of cross-species sex, and assuming the animal is happy to participate, that's a different situation.

This is clearly animal abuse.

But I want to raise a different issue. People can be fucked up in more than one way. FIDO's partner has been grooming FIDO all along: first mentioning the kink, and now pressuring FIDO to participate. If FIDO eventually agrees, that will show the asshole boyfriend that he can do anything, eventually, without FIDO leaving him. I wouldn't be surprised if there were even worse plans ahead, if FIDO (god forbid) stayed around for this.

Take care when you leave, FIDO. Don't let him know until you're all set to leave, or maybe consider letting him know after you've already left.
Zuulabelle @28, thanks for an excellent post. Your point about "behavioral problems leading to the dog being ineligible for rehoming" also applies to people who want the dog to lick or fuck them, so I just want to clarify that I don't think it's ethical to participate in sexual play with dogs. (Though it's still worse to fuck them.)
I think this is called "being so open minded your brain fell out."
I feel like the consent argument against bestiality is pretty fragile, since we do all sorts of other things to animals without their consent, like neutering or spaying them, or killing them and eating them. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that some bestiality is serious abuse -- sticking your dick in a tiny dog or cat, if it didn't get you clawed to pieces, seems like it would be pretty painful for the animal in question, and therefore not cool. But sticking your dick in a horse or cow is a pretty different call, since, you know, farmers and vets routinely stick their entire fucking arms inside those animals, and most of us aren't opposed to that.

None of this is to be taken as an endorsement of bestiality. I just think in a lot of cases, the consent argument is rooted in prudishness rather than reason, because the arguers could give two fucks about animal consent in other walks of life.
@31 I love that phrase, but I'd never seen an example in the wild, so to speak. Now we have.

(Another atheist agreeing with Dan: Please, god, let this be fake!)
Yes, ew, I would run like hell. Still! We raise animals in horrible conditions, kill them, eat them, and walk around in their skin. That is worse.
@7 why are dogs off-limits, but horses not? Eh? Your interview with the horse fucker is one of my favourites.
Oh wait. I just figured it out. That was a MARRIED horse fucker!
It's not the animal I am worried about, so much as the degradation of humanity that bestiality represents to me.

5, etc. Every regular reader knows Dan was brought up Catholic. That programming goes deep. Why do you think religions work so hard on imprinting on babies? They may not have known the psychology behind it, but they certainly understood the outcome.

The good part is that as we mature, we can choose to overcome our programming. Dan GTFO of the church and chooses to raise his kid in an atheistic home. So what if he still likes the iconography and lapses into mentioning God once in a while. We know what he means.

Another way to look at is this: Didactic people who are desperate to pounce on anything they perceive as being inconsistent, w/o allowing for vernacular figures of speech are bores at best.
Here's another phrase for FIDO: if you keep bending over backward for this POS you're gonna end up looking like an asshole to yourself.
@31, perfect.

Yes, yes, we should all be open minded and GGG and all, but fuck, people. There are limits, even to GGG. At some point sanity has to prevail.

Dog fucking should be well beyond the limits of any sane person.
Yeah, fake.
For all the discussion about animals and consent or the absence thereof: this isn't really about the animal, is it? Be honest, this is about people. We are the ones calling the shots, and we are the ones passing judgment. I'm not saying that I disagree with the advice, I'm just saying that we humans should own the issue and call it for what it is: who we do and don't want to live among, and where we draw lines about ethics and morality. All this talk about consent is just a pretext as several posters have pointed out. Some percentage of the population eats dogs, and horses, and cows and pigs - so anyone who does that (and I do eat some of the above) really have no grounds for bleating about consent. Because it's not about the animal.

Homophobia doesn't exist among animals, either.

So if you want to draw the line about sex with animals, by all means draw it. It definitely skeeves me out. But I don't think it should be illegal, I don't think it's necessarily a sign of mental illness, and I don't think it's about consent. But I do think it's a value judgment and should be owned as such. Pick it up and carry it, and stop being a hypocrite.
Bet Pat Robertson wrote this letter. He's sick enough.
And right under this entry are ads for ZooTunes and Jet City Animal Clinic "Nail Trim or Gland Expression ($16.00 value) at Jet City Animal Clinic for $8.00!"


And I mean that in the most non-religious way possible.
I recommend that this post be pulled by management.
Margaret Cho: "I have pretty low standards... but he was just unfuckable." Not about dog fuckers, but applicable.
@38. Actually I have no problems with Dan's hypocrisy or his atheism. I was just poking at him because it was funny. And his response was hilarious. I laughed all the way home from work, so it was more than worth the poke.
Felony animal abuse. Also, fake as fuck.
There is a valid consent argument here...the dog fucker is violating his partner's consent. His partner has explicitly stated that he does not want anything to do with that kink, that it should be enjoyed privately, and not shared. The LW needs to follow Dan's advice and DTDFA because the partner doesn't give a fuck about HIS consent. If he cannot respect that very basic boundary, what other boundaries is he going to cross?
Go figure the veeeegans would think eating a burger is worse than fucking a dog. It's like human evolution as omnivores never happened.
@37: Indeed. Dog fucking flatters the dog but insults humanity.
@51: Precisely.
This letter plus response is being forwarded to ex-Sen. Santorum, I hope, to demonstrate that the homosecksuals have standards that he can agree with?
20 wins the thread. 20 wins everything.
Fake and you should just pull the post, Dan.
@20, But I don't think he won a date with nocutename. He just made her laugh at a one liner.
So he didn't win everything.
Dogs love fucking and so do humans. Some love fucking dogs and some dogs love being fucked by humans. So what? The human race has much more important things to deal with. Like what we do to each other. Women are being raped in incredible numbers in our own military.
Abusers will push you to do things beyond your limits so that afterward you will feel that you are so debased that no one else will have you.

If they don't respect your limits they don't respect you.
Fake--they just took the "I really love him but he has this weird kink" template and put "dog fucking" in there. Delete.
@33: Wasn't one of the main vectors for the phrase Carl Sagan?* He's not necessarily "underground".

*I recall seeing it in Demon Haunted World.
I typically avoid Savage Love letters, but every so often I read one. Wish I hadn't read this one.
Dan, if you have the Hump bar as 'no minors', 'no animals', and 'no s**t', then why should the bar for SL be lower?
Don't be surprised if someone forwards this to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for fodder for their fundraisers.
Fucking Tony Perkins already reads Savage Love to look for fodder (or at least a couple of his immediate toadies do).
@57: And yet here you are, posting on the internet instead of solving any of these issues.
It boils down to consent. Any sexual act that involves consent (all adults, everyone involved being okay with it) is a kink. Animals cannot give consent -- nor can children, the mentally disabled, and the inebriated. Bestiality is therefore not a kink, it's a perversion.
Real, fake, whatever. I'm just happy Dan got to use "DTDFA".
Probably fake. And probably some right wing troll hoping to trick Dan into saying something that they could then try to use against him.
Okay, can we stop ripping on Mr. Savage for condoning animal cruelty now? I'm confident that the dog would rather be kicked.
I don't think @61 actually read Dan's response. Reading comprehension fail. And the real estate agent swore Wallingford had good schools :-P
@68, No, even though Dan was repulsed I fault him for responding to the letter in the first place.

I picture an old lady who moved there in her twilight years without ever having gone to school in Wallingford.
@66: Probably some guy who believed, as Rick Santorum does, that anyone promoting gay marriage also approves of man-on-dog. In fact, for all I know, LW might in fact be Rick Santorum, still mad about "santorum" costing him his political career.
I don't know the legality of this but I would think dog fucking is illegal. By withholding knowledge of this illegal behavior could FIDO be guilty of accessory after the fact?
@67: Dogowner who can't (or are unwilling to) control their beast spotted.
@72: There are no Federal animal cruelty laws (… ), and many states do not call out or recognize sexual abuse of animals, because God placed animals on earth to serve Man or something something.
Besides the moral ick factor and the cruelty to the animal, how could anyone engage in sex with someone that they know has had sex with an animal? You'd think he'd want an enema on any body part that had encountered a body part that had interacted with an animal.
"My partner rapes animals [which physically cannot give consent!], should I be okay with this?"

This man in no way represents the other lunatics that call Colorado home. I am not going out to meet any guys for a while in fear that one of these guys are out there waiting somewhere in Uptown or Capitol Hill smelling like dog ass with a phone full of pictures to show me when we get home...
@77, there are something on the order of 50,000 people living in Capitol Hill. Your odds of running into this guy are pretty low.
Pretty much unless you're opposing any human use of animals for anything, opposition to bestiality is rooted in the squick factor. Presuming most people are still okay with eating non-human animals, wearing their skins, using their stuffed corpses as decorations, using them to test new technologies (medicines, cosmetics, spacecraft, etc.), or keeping them as pets (especially when that bond is really strong - people who consider their pets to be like children are doing something FAR stranger in my estimation in terms of cross-species social relations than someone who likes to fuck dogs or horses), ask yourselves why those are okay but sexual behavior isn't. It's pretty much just social stigma. Shaming dog-fuckers but not burger-eaters or leather-wearers or sport hunters or a whole lot of other people that amount to a majority of our population here in USA is some hypocritical bigotry motivated by our tendency to treat sex as some sort of mystical activity that's unlike other human behaviors (which it is, just not intrinsically - that view is a function of the extant cultural discourses of sexuality). (While I agree with trying to prevent harm to non-human animals without a huge benefit to humans, I have several objections to applying any of the various human ethical systems to non-human animals, since their socializations and biologies are very different, with the possible exception of some of the great apes, and human biology and culture are what determine our ethics.)
Obviously a right-wing asshole trying to fabricate some evidence that Santorum was right and Savage is in favor of "man-on-dog" after all.