I'll admit it - I don't like dogs. They're dangerous, loud, dirty, and they have no place in residential areas. Nevertheless, it is evident that many members of society, particularly women, are exceptionally fond of these creatures. The perception that woman love dogs disproportionately isn't imagined, and it's worth noting that it's a new trend. Many millennial women have opted to have dogs over children, and sometimes even husbands!
This is all good news for dogs. They're being invited into some of the most affluent homes in the world, and they are being pampered beyond belief. All that money that would have went to paying for a child's tuition, clothes, and other essentials is now spent caring for a canine.
With this information in mind, you would expect to see women have great relationships with dogs, and for dogs to appreciate their time with women. That is not what we're seeing. Instead, we are witnessing an increasing number of dog attacks on women specifically.
What could possibly mansplain this trend? Well, I have a theory. It is a drastic one, but I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove it. Warning, it does contain rather vile elements, but these are aspects of reality we cannot ignore. Please, feel free to debunk me where you find flaws, but I am certain there are few.
What causes dogs to bite?
So why do dogs bite? Well, a few reasons. Let's start with the least violent reasons. Dogs use their teeth to manipulate objects in the environment. This is typically known as a "soft bite" and it may be used to pick up a pup, for example. The soft bite is also used by hunters to retrieve fowl.
Some dogs have been bred to have a strong bite instinct to use when herding. This is especially useful when dealing with stubborn breeds of cattle that don't respond to the usual intimidation tactics from dogs. These small bites are known as "nips", and sometimes dogs will "nip" children in an attempt to hard them.
Dogs also bite as a form of communication. You see, dogs don't have words, but they do have barks and growls. Biting can be an extension of that. If a growl doesn't deter an unwanted threat, a bite is meant to get the job done.
Lastly, dogs bite to destroy. Like us, dogs can be angry, vengeful, and scared. In such situations, they may seek to destroy whatever is causing them upset. To do this, they maul. It is actually very rare for dogs to maul. Firstly, many dogs don't have the mauling instinct. They simply bite and release. Secondly, when dogs attack, they are typically scared. They don't want to spend more time near you than necessary. Mauling puts them close to their attacker, which is dangerous. Lastly, dogs are typically naive regarding humans, as we have bred them that way. There is very little benefit to biting a humans for a dog, unless they are defending themselves. This is not to say that dogs never bite for no reason. Of course not. However, they almost never maul for no reason.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PITBULL?
Quite frankly, I don't consider pitbulls to be domesticated dogs. They're feral animals. There's nothing domesticated about a pitbull. For normal dogs, mauling for no reason is exceptionally rare (usually such instances are due to old dogs suffering from dementia).
So what's my theory? It is simple: Many cases of dog bites involving women are instances of self defence. The dogs weren't attacking. They were defending themselves from women. I will take things a step further, and I know this is where I will lose most of you. The dogs are typically defending themselves from sexual assault or rap. No, I'm not joking in the slightest. I'm aware of the seriousness of my statements. I express them publicly because of the conclusions I have drawn.
A Case Study
Jacqueline Durand was a 22 year old girl who loved dogs, was in the University of Texas, had a boyfriend, and would dog walk in her free time. She was hired to walk the dogs of Dr Bishop and his wife Ashley. It was two dogs, one a German Shepherd and the other a Boxer (according to some reports it was a Boxer and Pitbull mix, though this hasn't been confirmed). What's important to note here is that Jacqueline had met the dogs prior, and even she admits they were sweet and showed no signs of aggression.
On 21 December 2022, she arrived at the house where she was to meet the dogs. According to Jacqueline, as soon as she opened the door, it triggered the alarm, causing the dogs to attack her for over an hour. During the attack, she sustained over a hundred bits and lost love 30% of her blood. She was terribly disfigured, and she will be facing for the next two years, as she stated in an interview earlier this year.
There are a few points I'd like to highlight. If they attacked her at the door, why was the main location of the mauling at the beds of the dogs? So did they drag her from the door to the living room because they wanted somewhere private and secluded to ensue the mauling? I struggle to understand why dogs would want to drag someone into the home. Dogs are territorial. If anything, they'd be trying to get her out of the house.
Secondly, she was found completely naked. COMPLETELY. You can see a snippet of the bodycam footage here, but be warned that it is extremely graphic.
How do dogs take off clothes? They haven't any hands. Are we supposed to believe that dogs took off her clothes? Everything, including bra and panties?! Here's my big question: for the facial reconstruction surgery, they took skin from her buttocks. How did the dogs take off her underwear without ripping the skin off her buttocks as well? So they were vicious enough to rip off her underwear but delicate enough to leave the skin of her buttocks intact to the point where it could be used for grafting. Bullshit. Yes, it should be clear what I am implying - she entered the house of her own according, found the dogs alone as she was anticipating, and proceeded to remove her own clothing.
These dogs were in the home of a doctor, who lived with a child, and none of them had ever been victimized by the dogs. Why did they then, out of the blue, decide to chew on a human being for the next hour? Something triggered them. I put it to you that these dogs were provoked, and you know how.
Since then, she has tried to press charges on the Bishop family. The only evidence that the dogs showed any kind of aggression prior was a sign warning visitors not to press the doorbell or else it'll get the dogs going. Nothing at all abnormal about dogs reacting to the doorbell. Plenty of dogs go nuts when the doorbell rings, including friendly dogs anticipating visitors.
The clothing is the most darning piece of evidence for me. The second most darning evidence is the fact that Jacqueline still loves dogs. She still owns dogs (large ones of course), and she wants to work with dogs. This isn't a normal love of dogs. There is something else going on here, a deep attraction to these beasts that goes beyond anything rational. I will not overlook the fact that one of the worst dog attack victims in recent memory still can't keep her hands off dogs. That's not quirky, that's paraphilia.
Think about how many dogs have been put down following a dog attack. Oftentimes, we don't know what happened and the only people around to give an account are the victims and any potential survivors. Do you think we know the whole story? So many cases of mothers home with children who claim the dog suddenly snapped and ate the kids. We've been so quick to assume that the animals were acting wild. Never have we asked whether the dogs were the victims.
Self-defence is not a crime, especially against unwanted sexual contact. Next time you hear about a woman who was alone and suddenly got attacked by dogs, think twice.
Edit2: I'll categorize this list by activity and create sub-categories later today and probably add to it over time. I put it together so it'd be easier for people to find fun fringe drama or otherwise be entertained. Enjoy!
Please comment if you have others to add to the list. I bit off more than I can chew because apparently there's thousands of these, so I omitted ones that were boring, inactive, and/or redundant.
General or Misc Fringe
Religion, Politics, & Conspiracy (aka BORING)
Scientific & Historical
Edit: Oops, pressed enter too soon
- Assy-McGee : Carp is StimMAXXing, get help
incels.is is a criminally untapped vein of content.
Warning: TMI and oversharing.
Men scare me. Their lust terrifies me. I'm seriously not sure if I can ever see my self trusting a man or deeming him worthy enough of my virginity or body. At the same time, I know I have a crazy high libido. It's a conundrum. So for the first time in my life, I used a dildo. Prior, to this I've never inserted anything up there, (apart from tampons). It was VERY uncomfortable at first but after that fine. No blood though. It felt so great being in control and not having to emotionally depend on a man. It also gave me lots of confidence and reassurance that I am capable.
I know deep down this doesn't count as losing my virginity. I so wish it did and might convince myself it does. It upsets me that I still have that to give that “first” to a real man.
Anyone else experienced anything similar or have any advice to get over this hurdle?
Edit: Thanks for the support everyone! Seeing a lot of comments saying that “virginity is a construct” and that I need to let this whole idea go. Trust me, I know and I am REALLY want to. However, for context, I grew up in an ultra Christian household that drilled purity culture into me since I was 5 years old. So unfortunately, it's a very complicated and distressing narrative to unpack. It doesn't help I have been disappointed by men my entire dating life so emotionally I think I would break if the experience was bad and I was regretful.
ummm sweatie you forgot the /s
So he went to prison for calling someone a fat lesbian, I though Switzerland was better than this.
Homophobic and racist people shouldn't be imprisoned, not even fined, this is insanity, they didn't commit any crimes
He was convicted of discrimination and inciting hatred on the basis of sexual orientation (art. 261bis CP). He did commit a crime and therefore he was sentenced on that basis.
"Homophobic and racist people shouldn't be imprisoned"
French guy here, Alain Soral had this coming from a long time. He's a notorious racist, misogynist, antisemite and Holocaust denier essayist, and has already been trialed several times in France. He went to Switzerland most likely to escape justice. He isn't even smart enough to ally himself with the French far-right, and has gotten into physical fights with other French white supremacists because they weren't antisemite enough for him.
He's a asshole who honestly deserves every bad thing happening to him, and this is just his latest fait d'armes, don't get tricked into thinking he's just an innocent victim.
absolute state of chuds
Has he hurt someone? Or planned to do so? If yes, he should be punished for that. Not for saying rude words.
Incitement to hatred and hate speech are punished by law. This isn't the US.
calling someone a fat lesbian is incitement to hatred
A ‘Nazi' or a Nazi can be an essayist, those are not conflicting so the comment makes no sense at all
Far right means Nazi in my book…no exceptions, mate
this has to be some sort of bot, right?
Sorry guys, lots of you seem to be missing the point or the context. Soral has been, for, let's say, 15 years, one of the far right figures, in France, with a long story of conspiracies theories, racial slurs, homophobic and antisemtic remarks and so on and so on. He's been on many trials in these 15 years, and went from France to Swiss hoping for a more convenient justice system.
The judgment not only sanctions the remarks he made about this person, but a looooong story of neonazi history ( he claims himself a national socialist)
Imo that's why judgement was what it was.
This is reddit, it's easier to read the rage-bait, intentionally inflammatory title of an article and get upset about it and blame gay people for the Fall Of Western Civilization™ than read the ACTUAL article and realize nazism has to be nipped in the bud.
leftoids really say this and then wonder how the rightoids gain more votes
As well as sending peepee pics to a minor girl.
in that case
- CREAMY_DOG_ORGASM : R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE R*PE
This Marsey came to me in a flash and I had to stop everything I was doing until it was done
lol he seems so guilty and is doing a stream that is just digging the hole deeper
Unfortunately for her, she doesn't have Scorcese's cultural cache and Barbie/Oppenheimer don't have Marvels reputation in order for this to work .. So she gets almost universally shat on with very few people defending.
Some reactions to her statement:.
I don't understand how this one is relevant but I thought I post it nonetheless .
As a lifelong cinephile, I had much more satisfying experiences with both Barbie and Oppenheimer, than I've had with any of Reichardt's movies, which move along at a numbing glacial pace, and are the movie equivalent of eating Grape Nuts cereal with sour buttermilk and no sugar.
Kelly's last movie Showing Up took reality and made it duller. No artist in Portland is as boring as she presented them. I think she worries the standard set by Barbenheimer is that audiences will expect to be entertained and informed by people who made an effort.
I thought this one was pretty funny .
Now, I haven't watched Barbie but I do think you can get away with calling it a glorified toy commercial no matter how much social commentary it tries to push in. Bunching Oppenheimer with it was in my opinion a mistake. You can argue whether it is good art or bad art but films like that are better representatives of cinema as an artform than the mumblecore nonsense that Reichardt makes .
Everyone who is hiding a cell phone from their abusive husband gonna get r*ped tonight (according to Reddit)
Two hours I think
The top 2 candidates for Speaker are the Baton Rouge Congressman and the White part of New Orleans Congressman, for some reason tigerdroppings is melting down over the fact that south Louisiana is in a huge position of power right meow (I think because both of them are not Trumpian enough, but not 100% sure).
- PermaChudRanch : @BWC alert in post
Indian-AmeriKKKan male here - just came back from a 3 week trip to the Midwest (Michigan, Ohio and Indiana).
It's safe to say after this trip - my gratitude for being in California has increased 100X (I grew up here so always took it for granted).
To be honest I'm a little surprised - I've heard great things about the Midwest on Reddit but after now having traveled all over the country, it's definitely my least favorite part. Just way too homogenous, very average food, terrible weather (I wanted to kill myself after being stuck outside since my friend forgot the keys), overemphasis on football and beer, and the mind boggling amounts of obesity (the scooter in Walmart meme is real).
But really the worst bit of it is this grating, palpable sense of being a minority - this feeling that your experience and identity is "alien" to the fabric of the area - and that nobody cares (if you're not in the "Christian, football, beer" bubble it feels like your experience has limited value). What this means is if you don't enjoy those things then it's unlikely you'll connect with people since these are the prized cultural traditions by which people bond. Haven't even felt this way in the South (Georgia mostly).
The strangest thing is also interacting with minorities who are from there too (mostly Indian / Asian folks) who've basically become accustomed to feeling like second class citizens - one Asian woman I met there basically told me she only dates White people so that she and her children can feel more "accepted".
Yes there are nice people there and I've met very friendly, normal polite folks there who've been hospitable but overall the ethos of the area just felt very strange to me.
But yeah - I'm extremely glad to be back home.
EDIT: I wanted to note that homogeneity / insularity is the biggest issue - it's not really about a particular group of people.
The top comments, as you've probably correctly guessed, are about food.
I've lived Upstate for several years, never once felt the need to turn myself into a caricature. I don't know what this chigga is talking about.
It's because that's where most jobs are, the reason why most immigrants come to the country in the first place.
A few people calling out his nonsense in controversial https://old.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/16z7dtp/i_am_grateful_to_be_in_california?sort=controversial
So what did the Midwest do to actually hurt you? So much of this is projection. You assumed Midwestern people don't care about you. How many football loving people did you interact with that actually gave you a bad time because you didn't share the same interest? Being in diverse places means accepting of other ways of life and lifestyles different than your own. But when you encounter people actually different from you, you feel as if they're beneath you if they shop at Walmart and obese or like football and "bland" food. Seems like you're the one judging here.
Honestly you come across as a really ungreatful person.
How would you feel if a midwesterner went to India and came back and said something like
"India sucked....just way too homogenous with Indians. Terrible Indian food everywhere. Everyone talking about cricket all the time. Everyone drinks chai all the time. I wanted to kill myself"
Do you feel that this opinion is justified? No right? Then how is it ok when you do it.
!coomers need your expert opinions
@i_only_downvote_bad_posts get in here!
Where do you want your statue Big Dan Burn?
Where do you want your statue Sean Longstaff?
Miggy > Mbappe
I love the gold pics.
The monetary system on this site is broken and fiscally irresponsible!
Got food for three years, water for two months, and an undisclosed amount of ammo.
If you want to apply to join me plz tell me how you'd be able to contribute.
When I sign into YouTube on the TV, it shows multiple inappropriate 'shorts' in the history, these have a red line across the bottom of the screen which indicate that the video was fully watched.
There are also other videos that only have the red line for part of the screen which indicates that the video was partially watched - this shows to me that the history feature is working correctly, right ?
Our latest d-day was two weeks ago, and I've just found these videos from the last couple of days. (It's the same sort of content he used over the past two years and multiple d days). My husband swears that he has no idea where these videos have come from and said he hasn't watched them. I told him how could YouTube history be wrong, but my husband who has repeatedly lied to me about this, be somehow telling the truth?
What's confusing me is he is swearing on our holy book and God (he is extremely religious, I can't believe he would lie like that), he's even said 'if I'm lying then God change my religion', which is extremely drastic and he's never said this kind of stuff on previous d-days.. I didn't tell him to swear by God or anything he's just said it all himself..
I'm so confused. Could YouTube be wrong? He's admitted that he saw one of the videos briefly while scrolling YouTube shorts but skipped it immediately. On the history it shows fully watched. He's denying all knowledge of the other videos.
Could it be some weird YouTube feature and my husband is actually telling the truth and coincidentally the history is accurate for other videos but not for these . Feel like I'm going mad.