- Joined
- Mar 18, 2019
I don’t see how a dog willingly fucking a human female does it any harm at all, unlike the situation where it is sodomized by a male.
Zoosadist Zoosadism Megathread - Joshua "Kero the Wolf" Hoffman & Friends.
- Thread starter Reality Doctor
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
Except most of the dogs that are "topping", whether it's with a bottoming gay guy or a woman, tend to develop serious aggression issues anyway due to it conflicting with their dominance behaviors and the psychological issues resulting from being used as a high maintainence dildo, and said animals either get passed around from zoo to zoo until they wind up with aforementioned ass rapist, or are given to normies where they attempt to hump and bite at random and get put down because they are taught that mounting people is a normal behavior. The zoos who do keep their animals also tend to keep multiple animals (more seen with dudes than women, wonder why) and these aggression and dominance issues can end up with the dogs mauling one another as well.
Also it goes without saying that animal and human genital bacteria are not particularly compatible; the human vagina has an exceptionally high PH value and dog dicks are extremely porous, so there is still a good chance of a dog getting a UTI or another serious reaction regardless of if they're doing ass to mouth or not.
Some dude raping a dog in the ass is probably more immediately painful, but both topping and bottoming is an act of extreme selfishness and risk on the part of the person doing it and whether it's a slow death by untreated infection or veneral disease, or a quick one by a ruptured colon it still equates to yet another animal killed for no good reason.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
Prepare your autism ratings, but I honestly think there is a moral difference between some guys forcefully assraping a whimpering dog and a woman getting on her knees and the dog willingly fucking her. I mean I’d rather be a dog getting to rail human poon than a pig being turned into
That’s the same reasoning used to say women molesting boys is less harmful...gross.
Edited cuz of hand-tardness
That’s the same reasoning used to say women molesting boys is less harmful...gross.
Edited cuz of hand-tardness
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2019
Thank you, this is literally the first time I’ve ever read an argument against female bestiality that was not simply „uh but the poor animal can’t consent“. I am not a doctor or vet and have no idea how realistic the idea of a dog dying from a UTI caused by human vagina is (sounds far fetched tbh and most STDs shouldn’t transfer cross species), but the socialization argument is a sound one.
At the same time I’d suggest everyone horrified by this to maybe consider reducing their consumption of animal products a bit - way worse stuff than described in this thread is routinely and legally done in the meat and dairy industries.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2019
That’s a good point you make! I reckon a woman passively getting on her knees waiting for a boy to come and willingly fuck her is indeed less harmful than a man holding down a boy and forcefully sodomizing him. Thank you for making me type out this cursed sentence!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2016
Yup. She still deserved jail time if she’s still alive but at least she won’t make an animal bleed to death from its anus
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
Most STDs and most animal/human transfer of diseases in general are caused by exposure that allows a virus, bacteria, or common disease to mutate and cross genetic boundries that would otherwise make them unlikely to infect a host. You don't even need to be closely related to the animal on the evolutionary tree for this to happen; Spanish Flu is now believed to be an example of a disease that formerly only affected birds suddenly cross-transmitting through domestic populations and killing off 50 million people. That shit is why everyone loses their minds and euthanizes hundreds of chickens every time H1N1 rears it's head in foodstock.
FIV (aka Feline AIDs) is very closely related to HIV in humans compared to a lot of other veneral diseases cats can carry. It is not currently transmissable to people, although it has spread rapidly in worldwide cat populations since it's discovery in 1986 and, due to the popularity of domestic cats and the likelhood of there being an evolutionary vector involved (it's spread predominantly through bites rather than sex) the possibility of there being an isolated case of it mutating and spreading to people isn't impossible or off the table.
Tl;dr The chance of there being a bonafide life-threatening disease transfer caused by people fucking dogs is low, but not impossible, and veneral diseases in particular spread almost as fast as a coof among those who are having liberal sex with anything on two and four legs, especially if they are sharing partners as many zoos seem to.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2019
didnt kero's dog die due to an untreated uti which travelled up to his kidneys and killed him? a uti he probably got from being trained to fuck kero's unwashed ass?
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2020
I think the whole point of making this comparison is that there are other kinds of "damage" that can be caused by rape other than physical. In all cases, be it a dog or a little boy/girl, the party being used for sexual gratification will suffer emotionally and psychologically. The coersion and grooming that pedophiles and dogfuckers alike use on their victims already hurt them enough. There is no condoning that, and no getting around the fact that a woman training her dog to hump her is hurting the animal. Saying one is "less harmful" than the other is a sentiment that makes no sense because they all cause harm, and thus there should be no wiggle room to allow for any of it.
This is correct.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2021
This is the reason why non-anthropocentric arguments against bestiality are problematic. Most people are willing to accept that humans have used animals for their own benefit, whether the animals "consent" to it or not. It behooves us to reason from the position that animals fundamentally exist to be exploited by humans in some way, but that we should prohibit some kinds of exploitation on anthropocentric grounds. Law exists for humans fundamentally, we create it and it wouldn't exist without us, so it makes sense that laws serve humanity first and foremost. Here's my take on the reasoning behind prohibiting bestiality:
The real question in regard to prohibitions on bestiality is what kind of person commits bestiality? Anti-social people. There are a number of studies that offer evidence that bestiality is fundamentally an erotization of control, violence, and objectification, and that these zoophiles rarely have just one paraphilia. Investigators in Sweden noted how often zoophiles got busted for CP, IIRC around 35% of them, which is a disproportionate number. One survey of zoophile forums shows that 75% of zoophiles are willing to break the law to engage in bestiality. Think about the kind of person who has no qualms about breaking laws to sate their desires, and you'll obviously start thinking about rapists and pedophiles, same category of people. Another study shows that, among convicts (convenience sample, sure, but it still matters) those who engaged in bestiality were significantly more likely to commit interpersonal and violent crimes compared to the non-bestiality group. The FBI has looked at the backgrounds of serial killers and discovered high rates of bestiality. In studies of juveniles sent to juvenile detention and psychiatric centers, it was noted that those who engaged in bestiality were more likely to have committed violent crimes and disproportionately likely to suffer from increased numbers of mental illnesses compared to the others.
Point is, there's a real reason to prohibit this kind of person from indulging in their erotization of violence: We want the state to be able to get these freaks into psychiatric wards before they can commit atrocities. I can post the studies if anyone wants them but I'm too lazy to sperg right now and flip through the data. Maybe I'll put them all in a post here at some point, but they're not hard to find. The fact that animals are suffering is almost a secondary concern, and reasoning from that basis is full of logical traps that stump people all the time.
Then we can appeal to other consequentialist arguments; for example, society doesn't gain anything from bestiality, but it stands to be substantially harmed through unnecessary risk of novel zoonoses. One could also argue that, even the argument that zoophilia could be prophylactic for rapists, allowing them to substitute animals for humans, fails on account of the fact that these people are practically training themselves to be better rapists, which we obviously wouldn't want. They are testing their techniques on animals and desensitizing themselves to the act.
The fact that animals cannot consent to sex still matters though, even if we view it in an anthropocentric way. Zoophiles often hold that bestiality is a kind of affection they give to sexually-deprived animals who they anthropomorphize as having human faculties and feelings; but there is obvious difficulty in determining whether an animal consents. Since they cannot speak and we can't yet read minds, assuming animals even have an intelligible mind to begin with, we will never understand unambiguously what an animal intends through its actions. Just like pedophiles often mistake innocent gestures by kids, like a smile or laugh, as "consent," how do we know zoophiles aren't mistaking an animal's gestures for consent when it's actually unrelated? We will also never know whether an animal is silently suffering, unable to express really how it feels after suffering a lifetime of sexual abuse.
This ambiguity itself cannot be overcome through measuring stress response, because all objective indicators of animal stress are ambiguous and only reliably measure excitement both positive and negative, not stress. Namely, the measuring of glucocorticoids (there's no correlation between glucocorticoid levels and stress in general.) An important problem in using glucocorticoids as an objective indicator of stress response to a specific event is that it's actually very hard to get an accurate measurement of glucocorticoid levels proximate to the event, since all methods of measuring it either cannot be taken on command (urine, feces,) themselves inherently cause stress (blood, saliva,) or accumulate glucocorticoids over a long period of time (hair follicles,) and all methods are subject to a high degree of variation, not only because glucocorticoid levels fluctuate in an unstable way over the course of the day, but also because chronic illnesses can alter levels of the chemical, and natural variation can occur for no perceptible reason. This is similarly problematic in humans too, by the way, attempts to measure the neurochemistry of stress. Animals react in varied ways to stress, sometimes they will even be friendly toward their abuser, so there's no way to tell if an animal is being harmed from an act at all. It's completely black-box.
Therefore, we cannot ever tell if an animal consents to something. Zoos often argue that an animal can be trained to consent, because there are examples of horses or dogs being trained to use symbols or sound boards to indicate what they want, like food or a blanket or to be let outside, but this has an obvious ethical issue: If a zoo wanted to train an animal to indicate whether it wants sex, the zoo would have to rape the animal as part of the training process, violating consent in the first place and poisoning all subsequent "signs of consent." And this is, of course, also complicated by the fact that, as I just established, animal intent behind behaviors is opaque and inscrutable to us. And a further consideration: How would we know that an animal's consent is actually intentional consent and not just Pavlovian conditioning? That's something crucial to establish, because if it's just conditioning, how would an animal conditioned to have sex be any different from a sex slave?
So in the end, there's no argument they can even make that bestiality could ever be consensual until we develop mindreading technology or something, which we do not have. fMRIs are notoriously opaque, and as I mentioned, neurochemistry is very opaque as well. Science just can't read brains yet, if it ever will.
If zoophiles, in response, want to jettison the idea of consent altogether, then they really don't have a justification that they're anything other than sexual predators. If something can't consent and you have sex with it, you're having sex without mutual assent -- without consent -- which is rape and would be as unacceptable if done to a human. They will have to argue either that non-consensual sex is morally unobjectionable, which is approval of rape, or they will have to claim that animal consent is separate from human consent, in which case they demolish their argument that animals are similar to humans and on that basis they can justify treating them as humans (which they don't do anyway, they confine them in houses like pets just like everyone else.) So essentially, they either approve of the sexual objectification of animals (predatory,) or they destroy the basis of their entire argument. Lose/lose.
Whether we should apply the standard of consent universally to all treatment of animals is kind of a moot point, since a lot of zoophiles will accept the idea of human consent and apply it to animals. If they do that, they're caught in the contradictions I just mentioned. The ones who don't anthropomorphize animals are basically approving of rape in a transparent way that everyone can understand. But fundamentally, the whole telos of this argumentation is anthropocentric, since the main question is whether the knowing demolition of animal consent echoes morally against human consent, which I've shown that it does. We can leave the matter of the meat industry/chattel pets/livestock aside and just settle for pointing out the contradictions.
Finally I want to point out that it's perfectly reasonable to ban something on the grounds that it's just naturally disgusting to most people. Obscenity and/or indency laws are about as old as law itself and are even today used to juristically uphold prohibitions against CP and certain kinds of fetish content. Even bans on sodomy are still used in some jurisdictions, for example, in the US Military, to prohibit male rape. We ban the obscene to maintain societal coherence and solidarity, and to avoid bringing harm upon those who might be susceptible to being unbalanced by seeing certain things. The extent to which you think that should be done is up to you, I prefer having intellectual freedom as much as possible so I'm generally against most kinds of censorship, but this could still be a perfectly legitimate justification against bestiality.
And also we cannot forget teleology, which has been used in the past to prohibit all kinds of behavior as unnatural, since it doesn't befit the final cause of humans, which in a sexual sense is to reproduce, to create and involve all the inner sexual principles in an act, and form a union between the masculine and feminine. I prefer this route exclusively since it allows us to stay consistent with the self-evident fact that animals and other things on the earth exist for our utility while avoiding gross sexual disrestraint, but it's obviously going to be a tough sell in secular modernity.
Point is, there's a real reason to prohibit this kind of person from indulging in their erotization of violence: We want the state to be able to get these freaks into psychiatric wards before they can commit atrocities. I can post the studies if anyone wants them but I'm too lazy to sperg right now and flip through the data. Maybe I'll put them all in a post here at some point, but they're not hard to find. The fact that animals are suffering is almost a secondary concern, and reasoning from that basis is full of logical traps that stump people all the time.
Then we can appeal to other consequentialist arguments; for example, society doesn't gain anything from bestiality, but it stands to be substantially harmed through unnecessary risk of novel zoonoses. One could also argue that, even the argument that zoophilia could be prophylactic for rapists, allowing them to substitute animals for humans, fails on account of the fact that these people are practically training themselves to be better rapists, which we obviously wouldn't want. They are testing their techniques on animals and desensitizing themselves to the act.
The fact that animals cannot consent to sex still matters though, even if we view it in an anthropocentric way. Zoophiles often hold that bestiality is a kind of affection they give to sexually-deprived animals who they anthropomorphize as having human faculties and feelings; but there is obvious difficulty in determining whether an animal consents. Since they cannot speak and we can't yet read minds, assuming animals even have an intelligible mind to begin with, we will never understand unambiguously what an animal intends through its actions. Just like pedophiles often mistake innocent gestures by kids, like a smile or laugh, as "consent," how do we know zoophiles aren't mistaking an animal's gestures for consent when it's actually unrelated? We will also never know whether an animal is silently suffering, unable to express really how it feels after suffering a lifetime of sexual abuse.
This ambiguity itself cannot be overcome through measuring stress response, because all objective indicators of animal stress are ambiguous and only reliably measure excitement both positive and negative, not stress. Namely, the measuring of glucocorticoids (there's no correlation between glucocorticoid levels and stress in general.) An important problem in using glucocorticoids as an objective indicator of stress response to a specific event is that it's actually very hard to get an accurate measurement of glucocorticoid levels proximate to the event, since all methods of measuring it either cannot be taken on command (urine, feces,) themselves inherently cause stress (blood, saliva,) or accumulate glucocorticoids over a long period of time (hair follicles,) and all methods are subject to a high degree of variation, not only because glucocorticoid levels fluctuate in an unstable way over the course of the day, but also because chronic illnesses can alter levels of the chemical, and natural variation can occur for no perceptible reason. This is similarly problematic in humans too, by the way, attempts to measure the neurochemistry of stress. Animals react in varied ways to stress, sometimes they will even be friendly toward their abuser, so there's no way to tell if an animal is being harmed from an act at all. It's completely black-box.
Therefore, we cannot ever tell if an animal consents to something. Zoos often argue that an animal can be trained to consent, because there are examples of horses or dogs being trained to use symbols or sound boards to indicate what they want, like food or a blanket or to be let outside, but this has an obvious ethical issue: If a zoo wanted to train an animal to indicate whether it wants sex, the zoo would have to rape the animal as part of the training process, violating consent in the first place and poisoning all subsequent "signs of consent." And this is, of course, also complicated by the fact that, as I just established, animal intent behind behaviors is opaque and inscrutable to us. And a further consideration: How would we know that an animal's consent is actually intentional consent and not just Pavlovian conditioning? That's something crucial to establish, because if it's just conditioning, how would an animal conditioned to have sex be any different from a sex slave?
So in the end, there's no argument they can even make that bestiality could ever be consensual until we develop mindreading technology or something, which we do not have. fMRIs are notoriously opaque, and as I mentioned, neurochemistry is very opaque as well. Science just can't read brains yet, if it ever will.
If zoophiles, in response, want to jettison the idea of consent altogether, then they really don't have a justification that they're anything other than sexual predators. If something can't consent and you have sex with it, you're having sex without mutual assent -- without consent -- which is rape and would be as unacceptable if done to a human. They will have to argue either that non-consensual sex is morally unobjectionable, which is approval of rape, or they will have to claim that animal consent is separate from human consent, in which case they demolish their argument that animals are similar to humans and on that basis they can justify treating them as humans (which they don't do anyway, they confine them in houses like pets just like everyone else.) So essentially, they either approve of the sexual objectification of animals (predatory,) or they destroy the basis of their entire argument. Lose/lose.
Whether we should apply the standard of consent universally to all treatment of animals is kind of a moot point, since a lot of zoophiles will accept the idea of human consent and apply it to animals. If they do that, they're caught in the contradictions I just mentioned. The ones who don't anthropomorphize animals are basically approving of rape in a transparent way that everyone can understand. But fundamentally, the whole telos of this argumentation is anthropocentric, since the main question is whether the knowing demolition of animal consent echoes morally against human consent, which I've shown that it does. We can leave the matter of the meat industry/chattel pets/livestock aside and just settle for pointing out the contradictions.
Finally I want to point out that it's perfectly reasonable to ban something on the grounds that it's just naturally disgusting to most people. Obscenity and/or indency laws are about as old as law itself and are even today used to juristically uphold prohibitions against CP and certain kinds of fetish content. Even bans on sodomy are still used in some jurisdictions, for example, in the US Military, to prohibit male rape. We ban the obscene to maintain societal coherence and solidarity, and to avoid bringing harm upon those who might be susceptible to being unbalanced by seeing certain things. The extent to which you think that should be done is up to you, I prefer having intellectual freedom as much as possible so I'm generally against most kinds of censorship, but this could still be a perfectly legitimate justification against bestiality.
And also we cannot forget teleology, which has been used in the past to prohibit all kinds of behavior as unnatural, since it doesn't befit the final cause of humans, which in a sexual sense is to reproduce, to create and involve all the inner sexual principles in an act, and form a union between the masculine and feminine. I prefer this route exclusively since it allows us to stay consistent with the self-evident fact that animals and other things on the earth exist for our utility while avoiding gross sexual disrestraint, but it's obviously going to be a tough sell in secular modernity.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
Eating animals is a biological necessity. The food industry isn't pretty, but humans need meat to survive. (Sorry vegans but fuck you.)
Wanting to fuck an animal has no survival value at all. It's just gross and is shunned for good reason. Saying it can be "not harmful" and even loving is morally the same as pedophiles claiming that they have the purest love for children.
Wanting to fuck an animal has no survival value at all. It's just gross and is shunned for good reason. Saying it can be "not harmful" and even loving is morally the same as pedophiles claiming that they have the purest love for children.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2019
She rolled on them because they leaked the video of her dog to others wide enough that it got back to her. I'm guessing the only part she didn't actually authorize was them filming it, she probably knew about the dogfucking. She gave her dog over to someone that allegedly risked her life just to get her to fuck him? No.
Sharklaser
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
And saying it's "not harmful" is objectively false. Do they even know the kinds of zoonotic diseases you can catch by fucking animals? HIV says hello. Say what you want about religious texts, but on a purely practical standpoint, banning people on pain of death from diddling fuzzies makes sense.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2014
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Now this I can get behind. I do like SOME of the arguements that go beyond ”animal cruelty(which zoophilia is) and “animals can’t consent”, others just seem undesirable to me no matter how well stated.
Speaking of HIV, didn’t that originally come from monkeys and it spread to humans due to wearing the skins and/or doin’ fuzzies?
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2018
From what I've read, nobody knows for sure. It came from Central African chimpanzees, and could have been transmitted through fucking monkeys or infected monkey blood getting into a wound or into a person through other means.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
I'll admit I didn't read this whole thing, but I think I agree with the gist: I don't personally dislike people who screw animals because of the poor animals. Oh no, the animals can't consent. Who cares, animals can't consent to virtually anything we do yet we exert our will on them anyways because that's how the world works, it's rule by force. They aren't motherfucking fur babies or some shit, they aren't children, they're animals.
No, the reason people who screw animals should be hunted down is because they behave exactly like this woman. They're pieces of trash with no sense of morality who will lie, scam, take anything they can from anyone without hesitation, and their predatory glee in taking advantage of those with no power to resist them virtually always permeates their entire being.
Well then that's a stupid comparison, because the mechanisms of each respective species' psychology are not even remotely similar. Human sexuality is far more important to the species, because we're far more socially complex and bearing and rearing a child is far, far more involved and resource intensive.
I mean, the vast majority of humans would find it traumatic to have to get naked and have sex in public, dogs got no problem with it, they'll hump anything that moves regardless of who's watching. They don't care if their entire family is watching. Dogs don't have to spend a while dog dating then drink a bottle of dog wine before they're willing to knock each other up. Because animals are not humans. Once you walk around eating cat shit and lapping up women's urine and puking then enthusiastically eating it, I'll be more willing to accept dog and human psychology should be treated as similar. Too bad it won't matter because you'll be in an institution, so ha, I win by default.
And living causes harm just by the biological processes required to maintain life. Hell, you're clearly sitting here using a fucking electronic device containing chips made with cobalt mined by enslaved African children and eating up electricity produced in a way that pumps tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment. Neither of those things are necessities. If anyone thinks they're free of the guilt of harm it doesn't actually mean they are, it just means they probably need a government appointed handler to prevent them from shoving forks in unprotected electrical outlets.
Now hold up, you can't just tell things that completely disprove what you're saying "fuck you" and ignore them. Vegans can survive quite well without eating meat. It was necessary to eat meat at one point long ago because we couldn't pick and choose where we got our nutrients, but at this point it is 100% viable not to. I eat meat because I like meat and don't have a fetish for deluding myself into thinking I'm a good person, but people go without quite regularly and quite successfully.
I feel like a moron sitting here even sounding faintly like I'm defending these people, I absolutely am not, but those who excessively humanize and infantalize animals rather than appreciating them for what they are (animals) are usually unpleasant emotionally unwell freaks themselves who are too caught up in convincing themselves they're angels for helping all those poor critters (who, unlike humans, conveniently can't tell them they're clingy nutjobs and to go away) to actually give a shit about other people.
That's exactly why I usually stay out of animal-centered corners of the internet. They're chock full of the same kind of moral masturbation and hair-trigger self-righteous outrage as Twitter, just with animals instead of brown people.
The Queen of Autists
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
Omg will you all shut the fuck up? Is this bitch dead or not? Jesus Christ it's a fucking tennis match in here, nobody cares, nobody is gonna win, go back to your own personal corners and beliefs. Sorry but somebody needs to blow the whistle and say move along, vegans this way, homophobes that way, dog fuckers over there, you're holding up traffic in the middle of a busy fucking intersection with all of your squabbles. Move along now, don't forget your hats and medals and puzzle pieces, off with ye now.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2018
Everyone has been saying for the last 5 pages that she's alive. Not up for debate at this point as she was active online as recently as last week. I'm not gonna knock you for not paying attention since the thread has grown 20 pages since my initial post. Wish the thread alert was updated but multiple people have asked for a change (including myself) and it's not been fixed yet.
Also yeah, can y'all PLEASE stop fucking talking about your morals on whether or not you're going to eat a fucking burger?
I do not fucking care. I want the rest of the info that @Kate Farms Shill said she was gonna drop.
Last edited: