Charles Alexander Berry / Buck Daniel Riley / Toggle the Rat / @onebiggrumpyrat / ExitMouse / Smoochthispooch / huskeyindenial / clunkymunk - Doug Spink's little animal rapist friend

RoboticRichardSimmons said:
Apparently his unethical quack of a "therapist" agreed to go on his podcast. There goes all of their credibility, what little they had left.

View attachment 2231403
Click to expand...
It's my understanding Miletski isn't his therapist but the bridge he used to find one who would tell him everything he does is acceptable. She's constantly recommended by him and other zoophiles for therapist referral.
Though, wouldn't shock me if he had used her as a resource before his advocacy for animal rape; he has a known incest fetish (albeit, gay) and she wrote an entire shitty book on mother-son relations.

Regardless,
what benefit does having a sexologist on the podcast create? Miletski knows absolutely nothing about animal welfare, with no accreditation or otherwise on the subject. She really went to lengths in her (not peer-reviewed) zoophilia book to imply zoophiles deserve to be treated as "misunderstood" all while giving them a spotlight to continue insisting it's somehow ethical.
Screenshot_20210604-165423_Messenger.png

So he's essentially just hosting an ass-kisser who doesn't care to understand the ethical issues of zoophilia, in the guise of her being credible to speak on it as a "valid sexuality". When will they talk to literally anyone who understands animal welfare and is credible in a relevant field? Never, because they won't support the mythical idea of "raping animals is fine".


Edit to include the podcast featuring Miletski. 01:54:19 to 02:41:41 for her specifically.

Of note, roughly 02:00:00 to 02:02:00, she declares most bestiality is not abusive to the animal since zoophiles love them so much, despite her aforementioned lack of knowledge in animal welfare. How heartwarming.
 
Last edited:
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: s0mbra, Cat Phuckers, RoboticRichardSimmons and 5 others
B1 Commander said:
that is the most. Scariest. Fucking. Thing

View attachment 2239111
Click to expand...
It only gets worse.
imageedit_1_4231781886.png

Of course it's a tranny.

And yes, Charles' character and the other freak are nude as well.
Lovecat is a middle-aged man, but this is his character.
imageedit_5_5310750932.png


imageedit_7_8991230138.png

They're all awful. It really provides an uncanny valley effect, especially with the eyes and feet?
 
  • Horrifying
  • Islamic Content
  • Informative
Reactions: s0mbra, Peru oso donas, Cat Phuckers and 9 others
Stupidface said:
It only gets worse.
View attachment 2240865
Of course it's a tranny.

And yes, Charles' character and the other freak are nude as well.
Lovecat is a middle-aged man, but this is his character.
View attachment 2240866

View attachment 2240868

They're all awful. It really provides an uncanny valley effect, especially with the eyes and feet?
Click to expand...
Silver lining: At least he knows he has a tiny embarrassing cock and doesn't hide it on his fursona.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Cat Phuckers, Toolbox and Stupidface
Stupidface said:
They're all awful. It really provides an uncanny valley effect, especially with the eyes and feet?
Click to expand...
The proportions are all weird, not just in the faces and eyes but the length of the bones and the shapes of the ribs or pelvis. It's terrible art, misshapen and deformed, repulsive even.

It suits the subjects perfectly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cat Phuckers, OccamsShaveClub, Rum Corps and 3 others
RoboticRichardSimmons said:
If you have to ask that question you probably don't belong in this conversation in the least bit.
Click to expand...
Him posting naked drawings of a dog tranny in heels and a cat cuntboy with a side of giant rat ball sack is pretty tame as far as zoophile shit obviously, but in the YouTube thumbnail you can tell the characters are naked too. The dog penis is just barely covered by the cat's hand. It's like sneaky and blatantly degenerate at the same time. All while they're demanding to be taken seriously about their "legitimate sexuality" on their "educational" podcast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clockwork_PurBle, Ballsack Pussylips, s0mbra and 2 others
Ramona said:
It's like sneaky and blatantly degenerate at the same time. All while they're demanding to be taken seriously about their "legitimate sexuality" on their "educational" podcast.
Click to expand...
If Charles was sure YouTube wouldn't shit itself over the art, I have the distinct feeling there'd be no attempt at this mild censorship. I mean, the topics of discussion are frequently and blatantly NSFW while having a disgusting amount of detail more often than not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cat Phuckers, Peru oso donas, OccamsShaveClub and 2 others
Ramona said:
The rat has giant balls
Click to expand...

There are different breeds (ha) of furry/zoo NSFW art horrors. Some consumers want fur art to look more human than anything else - including human-like proportions and genitals - just with paws and tails and cartoony animal heads. These people are degenerate enough already. But the further along you get on the spectrum of furfaggotry <----> zoophilia, the more "realistic" the genitals will be.

No doubt Toggle wanted to be true to real rats (who do indeed have proportionally massive balls).
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Clockwork_PurBle, Cat Phuckers, Toolbox and 2 others
RoboticRichardSimmons said:
Charles had his "therapist" listen to his podcast (probably for validation and acknowledgement):

View attachment 2231402

Apparently his unethical quack of a "therapist" agreed to go on his podcast. There goes all of their credibility, what little they had left.

View attachment 2231403
Click to expand...
I would be very interested in finding out who his therapist is. I think some people in the Memphis area deserve to know that their shrink supports dog diddling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: s0mbra, Cat Phuckers and Rum Corps
Stupidface said:
It's my understanding Miletski isn't his therapist but the bridge he used to find one who would tell him everything he does is acceptable. She's constantly recommended by him and other zoophiles for therapist referral.
Though, wouldn't shock me if he had used her as a resource before his advocacy for animal rape; he has a known incest fetish (albeit, gay) and she wrote an entire shitty book on mother-son relations.

Regardless,
what benefit does having a sexologist on the podcast create? Miletski knows absolutely nothing about animal welfare, with no accreditation or otherwise on the subject. She really went to lengths in her (not peer-reviewed) zoophilia book to imply zoophiles deserve to be treated as "misunderstood" all while giving them a spotlight to continue insisting it's somehow ethical.
View attachment 2231556

So he's essentially just hosting an ass-kisser who doesn't care to understand the ethical issues of zoophilia, in the guise of her being credible to speak on it as a "valid sexuality". When will they talk to literally anyone who understands animal welfare and is credible in a relevant field? Never, because they won't support the mythical idea of "raping animals is fine".


Edit to include the podcast featuring Miletski. 01:54:19 to 02:41:41 for her specifically.
View attachment 2231696
Of note, roughly 02:00:00 to 02:02:00, she declares most bestiality is not abusive to the animal since zoophiles love them so much, despite her aforementioned lack of knowledge in animal welfare. How heartwarming.
Click to expand...
A rapist can tell you they love you one million times while dick deep in you/you cunt deep in them and it doesn't make it anything more than a perverted disgusting lie, fuckface. Like abusive spouses who beat their partners then apologize or pedos who corrupt children into sex, but I wouldn't expect her to be empathetic enough to understand such a complex concept of not fucking your dog.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: s0mbra, Cat Phuckers, Peru oso donas and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back