I posted this confession a few days ago. Id say about 98% of comment and PMs that I got were very positive and supporting. Which I found odd because with it being so taboo I just figured I’d get a lot of hate. But here’s the update: So after posting my confession I did what any other horny girl would do, I just started to rub myself, reading all the comments and ideas that were sent to me. Until I noticed a few of the messages were about guidance/coaching. A few men decided that they would help me fulfill my fantasy, so I talked with them and found out sex with a dog is a little more complicated than I thought.
After about 2 hours talking to them, I was alone and decided to get my dog, Thor (my dogs name..), in my room. I learned the proper way to jerk him off and eventually sucked him until he came. Sucking him first was a bit overwhelming so I took my time. I did end up spitting his cum out as it doesn’t taste that good. To finish it, he licked me, which in all fairness, is now my best experience of something licking my pussy.
I wasn’t sure if I wanted to take the extra step and have sex with him yet so I stopped there. After all it was a pretty dirty day, I had a dog cock in my mouth. So yesterday comes around and I decided I was going to do it. Something about reading messages calling me a dog fucker/slut/whore. I love degradation so it got to me.
I was alone again, I got Thor up in my room, I laid a few towels on the ground and I jerked him again. Belong long I was sucking his cock again. That drove me wild, the thoughts running through my mind as my tongue played with his dripping, warm, slick cock were really my own end, per se. It turned me on so much that there really was no going back.
I had my mentors tell me how to go about it. On all fours, letting him smell my wet cunt, he gave it a few licks as well before I told him no. It took about 2 minutes for him to figure out he needed to mount me and then another 2 for him to slide inside me.
The initial feeling of his cock entering me, made me shiver and moan. But he didn’t even give me 5 seconds before he started to pound his little bitch. I wasn’t aware how hard it would be. He shoved his cock into me at full force, pulled out slightly then did it again...all happening quickly.
The thoughts of how dirty I am came back and I started to cum all over his doggy cock and I was down on all fours taking him. My arms that held me up, gave out, I fell on my face, I was still mid orgasm and Thor didn’t even think to stop pummeling me.
Before long I felt him shoot his cum inside me, it felt molten hot as it painted my pussy walls. It took a moment but his knot began to swell, by the end it felt like a baseball was inside me, I just laid there, exhausted, holding his leg.
His knot went down, him and I separated. A little shame washed over me, I felt bad for him and it’s gotten me to question myself. I washed up and I spent the rest of New Year’s Eve thinking about it.
My conclusion Yes I’ll be doing it again, I am a dog slut. I am a slut in general And sexual pleasure or the giving of sexual pleasure is a major part of who I am.
Tbh not sure how to end this— I’ll leave you with I’m honestly excited and delighted with how far I’ve let myself sexually explore, I might go further, if that’s possible
Everything is inherently moral unless there is one or more specific, convincing reasons that it should be considered immoral. For example, I cannot extol the virtues of rubbing my forehead on a doorknob, tapdancing on an air mattress, or staring at myself in the mirror - none of these things have any "worth," they're not considered the epitome of virtue - but no one would call any of these things "immoral" or argue for their illegalization. Why? Because there is not any reason for them to be immoral. tl;dr: There doesn't need to be a reason for something to be considered "moral." Everything is moral until proven otherwise.
Thus, it is the responsibility of people who are against zoophilia to provide convincing arguments to demonstrate that it is immoral. I will demonstrate that no such argument exists.
This is where the majority of the relevant discourse lies:
Potential argument 1: "Zoophilia is "gross/disgusting."
Trivially irrelevant. You'd be surprised the number of people who bring it up as if it's a meaningful argument, though....
Potential argument 2: "Zoophilia has long been considered immoral, contrary to the civilized norms of society / contrary to religious teachings / contrary to long-established moral code"
See Lawrence v Texas, 2003. Morality alone does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest. For something to be immoral, harm must occur, or the potential for harm must exist. Merely saying "It's immoral because it's long been considered to be" is a circular argument and is this not sufficient to demonstrate zoophilia's immorality.
Potential Argument 3: "Zoophilia is immoral because sexual activity requires consent. Animals cannot consent"
The first two arguments were, of course, laughably weak; this is the first argument many anti-zoo folks will throw at you. It's the "obvious" one, of course. It's the one most thinking people will give if you ask them why zoophilia is wrong. But it doesn't hold up.
The problem is that the argument is attempting to superimpose human standards of sexuality and of consent onto the animal kingdom. Pets do not "consent" to being kept in houses. They do not "consent" to medical procedures. They do not "consent" to being "petted" or physically rubbed. All of these things would require consent, by a fellow human. Furthermore, they do not "consent" to being eaten. Hell, they don't even "consent," by the human definition, to having sex with one another, since they don't fully understand what is going on and are acting out of instinct.
It's beyond clear that "animal 'consent' " is a meaningless concept, not applied to any other facet of our interaction with animals. It's just so ingrained in human understanding of sexual morality that some try to erroneously apply it in this instance, but it's not an appopriate application. The question we ask with regard to animals, to determine if an act is moral, is not "Did the animal consent," but "Was the animal unnecessarily harmed?" If no harm can be proven, this argument is irrelevant.
Potential argument 4: Zoophilia inherently is harmful to the animal
After Argument 3 is refuted, this is the natural next place anti-zoo folks try to go. However, there is no evidence that every single act of zoophilia is inherently harmful to the animal. Many of these people are even against non-penetrative acts such as animals performing oral sex on humans; it is extremely unlikely that zoophilia is inherently harmful.
Potential Argument 5: Zoophilia is sometimes harmful to the animal
Sure, it is. Some straight sex between humans is harmful, too. So is some gay sex. This says nothing about zoophilia's inherent morality.
Potential Argument 6: Because zoophilia is sometimes harmful to the animal, it should be illegalized to protect animals, even if it's not always harmful.
This is the very definition of an over-broad law. Why not just illegalize the activity that IS harmful, and leave the rest legal to keep one's rights intact? We already have animal abuse laws; those would apply to clearly harmful instances of zoophilia. Besides, this is not a challenge to zoophilia's inherent morality - it's a legal question, not a moral one.
Potential Argument 7: "Zoophilia is immoral and should be illegal because of the risk of STDs spread from animals to humans."
Even if this was a reason to illegalize something or consider it immoral, which I seriously doubt, this really isn't a massive issue among most acts of zoophilia performed by humans. Humans are much more likely to get STDs from fellow humans than from a dog or horse. It sounds like people who used the 80s AIDS panic to stigmatize homosexuality at any rate; I don't buy it for a second.
Potential Argument 8: "Let's assume you're right about my previous arguments - some acts of zoophilia cause absolutely no harm to the animal. Even in this case, zoophilia is still wrong because the animal's agency is violated. No being should be copulated with against their will - it's the same reason sex with a drunk woman is wrong even if the act causes no harm."
This is one of the most interesting arguments, and it's most difficult to refute because it's rather vague. To begin with, let's understand that the maker of such an argument is fundamentally rejecting a harm-based notion of morality. I firmly believe, as many great thinkers of the past have, in the "harm principle": "If something causes no harm, and has no potential to cause harm, it cannot be immoral."
In the case of a drunk woman, I believe it's easy to imagine harm that could befall her. She could be subjected to unwanted pregnancy. Moreover, she would be subjected to the psychological and sociological consequences of the act that had occurred when she comes to her senses; animals need fear neither such outcome. Nonetheless, I would absolutely accept that if there was a 0% chance of harm befalling the woman - if the "raping" party gained benefit, and the girl was absolutely guaranteed to neither come to harm nor even risk coming to harm of any sort, then the act must be considered moral by the "harm principle."
Our standards for the treatment and welfare of animals are lower than for humans, though, as they should be. Here's the interesting thing: For all of the arguments that concede harm to the animal as this one does, substitute "having sex with the animal" for "petting the animal." For example: "Petting an animal is wrong, even if you're sure harm will not occur, because it's impossible to be sure that the animal truly likes it. No being should have a hand rubbed across their back against their will."
It is absolutely unclear to me why anti-zoophiles making this argument will reject a statement like the one mentioned above, but accept its sexual analogue. Remember, it can't be because "the sex is more likely to harm the animal" - this very argument is conceding the harm aspect (read the arguments above for more on the potential for harm to the animal). Our standards for petting an animal, sex with an animal, or doing anything else with an animal should be the same, as long as no harm is occuring.
It's a tricky argument to properly refute because it relies on shifting the fundamental basis of morality: From the established "harm" principle to a vaguer notion of agency, with double-standards between sex, petting, and other actions. I will leave you with this: Even if we accept this other notion of morality - even if we accept that it renders zoophilia immoral - it is insufficient to justify making zoophilia illegal. Remember the landmark case of Lawrence v Texas 2003: Morality alone is not enough to justify a legitimate governmental interest (this is in holding with EU court decisions as well, to the best of my knowledge). If this argument is the only reason Zoophilia is immoral, it is insufficient to base a law on it alone. I hope we can agree to that compromise.
Potential Argument 9: "Why r u defending these sick perverts? I bet u fuck animals urself!!"
Ad-hominem. We always end up here though, eventually! I guess they get tired of finding out all of their arguments are rather easily refuted, and they're scared to accept what the truth must be...
Potential Argument 10: "Well, if zoophilia is moral then, what's to stop people from using these same arguments to justify pedophilia being considered moral?"
This...isn't a real argument? I guess some of the arguments could be applied that way; does that invalidate them in any way?
Just as an aside, I don't believe the case can be made to justify pedophilia as easily. Because of the social factors and cultural norms invariably acting upon every human, a child who is allowed to engage in sexual acts may develop a view of society that deviates from the norm, causing the child developmental problems and issues later in life. With animals, this could not happen. No animal considers sex to be some sort of "sacred act," or "shameful" in any way; it's purely instinctual. Nonetheless, I won't claim to speak as a biologist as I'm not one, but as mentioned earlier, this is just an aside anyways - this argument doesn't actually pose any threat to zoophilia's morality or legality because it's more of a rhetorical question than an actual argument.
Conclusion
I'm always happy to listen to new arguments, but I've never, ever heard one that convincingly demonstrates that either a) Zoophilia is inherently immoral, or b) Zoophilia should be illegal. As such, we must accept the "null hypothesis" I mentioned at the beginning of this post until proven otherwise - that Zoophilia is indeed moral and should be legal, at least in all cases where the animal cannot be shown to be put at risk of harm.
In regard too your arguments for ones right to engage in "non-harmful" sexual activity and engagement, I will simply say between man and dog, man is considered the intellectually superior species, you can say the animal was not harmed and merely used as a willing participant for sexual gratification of a female human, but as the intellectually superior species is not on us morally to look at the act and decide, does it in any way elevate the happiness of said dog? Doea it in any way contribute to the dog or the dogs species? And most importantly does it cause confusion within the dog? Your argument is well spoken and written as though we are in a debate class but I do believe that engagement of sexual activity with animals is symptom of a much deeper problem than simply allowing people the choice without legal repercussion.
17 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-01-03
This is not the time or place for another black-dick joke
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 tcfb 2018-01-03
Black labs matter you sentient fuck
1 comebepc 2018-01-03
Yes it is
1 shallowm 2018-01-03
Deleted post:
1 Why_We_Need_Islam 2018-01-03
1 Why_We_Need_Islam 2018-01-03
1 Hellkyte 2018-01-03
Why does Reddit have so many dog fuckers in it?
1 IslamicStatePatriot 2018-01-03
Because Redditors care about their animals. Honestly if own a dog and do not provide sexual release you are an animal abuser.
1 NardDogAndy 2018-01-03
I jerk my hamster off at least twice a day.
1 infinitude 2018-01-03
She's not ugly either. What the fuck
1 fucknazimozdzzz 2018-01-03
The dog fuckers are usually hot and crazy as fuck
1 trjb 2018-01-03
Post this to the new incels, thots would rather fuck animals than them...
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-01-03
lol, you can tell when the SRDines showed up.
1 shallowm 2018-01-03
Isn't it explicitly against SRD rules to vote or comment in the linked threads?
This gives us an opportunity to can the SRDines.
1 shallowm 2018-01-03
/u/slavefeet918 /u/agentofthenigh /u/Suckmyassbitchboy
Pro-Zoophilia argument:
Everything is inherently moral unless there is one or more specific, convincing reasons that it should be considered immoral. For example, I cannot extol the virtues of rubbing my forehead on a doorknob, tapdancing on an air mattress, or staring at myself in the mirror - none of these things have any "worth," they're not considered the epitome of virtue - but no one would call any of these things "immoral" or argue for their illegalization. Why? Because there is not any reason for them to be immoral. tl;dr: There doesn't need to be a reason for something to be considered "moral." Everything is moral until proven otherwise.
Thus, it is the responsibility of people who are against zoophilia to provide convincing arguments to demonstrate that it is immoral. I will demonstrate that no such argument exists.
This is where the majority of the relevant discourse lies:
Potential argument 1: "Zoophilia is "gross/disgusting."
Trivially irrelevant. You'd be surprised the number of people who bring it up as if it's a meaningful argument, though....
Potential argument 2: "Zoophilia has long been considered immoral, contrary to the civilized norms of society / contrary to religious teachings / contrary to long-established moral code"
See Lawrence v Texas, 2003. Morality alone does not constitute a legitimate governmental interest. For something to be immoral, harm must occur, or the potential for harm must exist. Merely saying "It's immoral because it's long been considered to be" is a circular argument and is this not sufficient to demonstrate zoophilia's immorality.
Potential Argument 3: "Zoophilia is immoral because sexual activity requires consent. Animals cannot consent"
The first two arguments were, of course, laughably weak; this is the first argument many anti-zoo folks will throw at you. It's the "obvious" one, of course. It's the one most thinking people will give if you ask them why zoophilia is wrong. But it doesn't hold up.
The problem is that the argument is attempting to superimpose human standards of sexuality and of consent onto the animal kingdom. Pets do not "consent" to being kept in houses. They do not "consent" to medical procedures. They do not "consent" to being "petted" or physically rubbed. All of these things would require consent, by a fellow human. Furthermore, they do not "consent" to being eaten. Hell, they don't even "consent," by the human definition, to having sex with one another, since they don't fully understand what is going on and are acting out of instinct.
It's beyond clear that "animal 'consent' " is a meaningless concept, not applied to any other facet of our interaction with animals. It's just so ingrained in human understanding of sexual morality that some try to erroneously apply it in this instance, but it's not an appopriate application. The question we ask with regard to animals, to determine if an act is moral, is not "Did the animal consent," but "Was the animal unnecessarily harmed?" If no harm can be proven, this argument is irrelevant.
Potential argument 4: Zoophilia inherently is harmful to the animal
After Argument 3 is refuted, this is the natural next place anti-zoo folks try to go. However, there is no evidence that every single act of zoophilia is inherently harmful to the animal. Many of these people are even against non-penetrative acts such as animals performing oral sex on humans; it is extremely unlikely that zoophilia is inherently harmful.
Potential Argument 5: Zoophilia is sometimes harmful to the animal
Sure, it is. Some straight sex between humans is harmful, too. So is some gay sex. This says nothing about zoophilia's inherent morality.
Potential Argument 6: Because zoophilia is sometimes harmful to the animal, it should be illegalized to protect animals, even if it's not always harmful.
This is the very definition of an over-broad law. Why not just illegalize the activity that IS harmful, and leave the rest legal to keep one's rights intact? We already have animal abuse laws; those would apply to clearly harmful instances of zoophilia. Besides, this is not a challenge to zoophilia's inherent morality - it's a legal question, not a moral one.
Potential Argument 7: "Zoophilia is immoral and should be illegal because of the risk of STDs spread from animals to humans."
Even if this was a reason to illegalize something or consider it immoral, which I seriously doubt, this really isn't a massive issue among most acts of zoophilia performed by humans. Humans are much more likely to get STDs from fellow humans than from a dog or horse. It sounds like people who used the 80s AIDS panic to stigmatize homosexuality at any rate; I don't buy it for a second.
Potential Argument 8: "Let's assume you're right about my previous arguments - some acts of zoophilia cause absolutely no harm to the animal. Even in this case, zoophilia is still wrong because the animal's agency is violated. No being should be copulated with against their will - it's the same reason sex with a drunk woman is wrong even if the act causes no harm."
This is one of the most interesting arguments, and it's most difficult to refute because it's rather vague. To begin with, let's understand that the maker of such an argument is fundamentally rejecting a harm-based notion of morality. I firmly believe, as many great thinkers of the past have, in the "harm principle": "If something causes no harm, and has no potential to cause harm, it cannot be immoral."
In the case of a drunk woman, I believe it's easy to imagine harm that could befall her. She could be subjected to unwanted pregnancy. Moreover, she would be subjected to the psychological and sociological consequences of the act that had occurred when she comes to her senses; animals need fear neither such outcome. Nonetheless, I would absolutely accept that if there was a 0% chance of harm befalling the woman - if the "raping" party gained benefit, and the girl was absolutely guaranteed to neither come to harm nor even risk coming to harm of any sort, then the act must be considered moral by the "harm principle."
Our standards for the treatment and welfare of animals are lower than for humans, though, as they should be. Here's the interesting thing: For all of the arguments that concede harm to the animal as this one does, substitute "having sex with the animal" for "petting the animal." For example: "Petting an animal is wrong, even if you're sure harm will not occur, because it's impossible to be sure that the animal truly likes it. No being should have a hand rubbed across their back against their will."
It is absolutely unclear to me why anti-zoophiles making this argument will reject a statement like the one mentioned above, but accept its sexual analogue. Remember, it can't be because "the sex is more likely to harm the animal" - this very argument is conceding the harm aspect (read the arguments above for more on the potential for harm to the animal). Our standards for petting an animal, sex with an animal, or doing anything else with an animal should be the same, as long as no harm is occuring.
It's a tricky argument to properly refute because it relies on shifting the fundamental basis of morality: From the established "harm" principle to a vaguer notion of agency, with double-standards between sex, petting, and other actions. I will leave you with this: Even if we accept this other notion of morality - even if we accept that it renders zoophilia immoral - it is insufficient to justify making zoophilia illegal. Remember the landmark case of Lawrence v Texas 2003: Morality alone is not enough to justify a legitimate governmental interest (this is in holding with EU court decisions as well, to the best of my knowledge). If this argument is the only reason Zoophilia is immoral, it is insufficient to base a law on it alone. I hope we can agree to that compromise.
Potential Argument 9: "Why r u defending these sick perverts? I bet u fuck animals urself!!"
Ad-hominem. We always end up here though, eventually! I guess they get tired of finding out all of their arguments are rather easily refuted, and they're scared to accept what the truth must be...
Potential Argument 10: "Well, if zoophilia is moral then, what's to stop people from using these same arguments to justify pedophilia being considered moral?"
This...isn't a real argument? I guess some of the arguments could be applied that way; does that invalidate them in any way?
Just as an aside, I don't believe the case can be made to justify pedophilia as easily. Because of the social factors and cultural norms invariably acting upon every human, a child who is allowed to engage in sexual acts may develop a view of society that deviates from the norm, causing the child developmental problems and issues later in life. With animals, this could not happen. No animal considers sex to be some sort of "sacred act," or "shameful" in any way; it's purely instinctual. Nonetheless, I won't claim to speak as a biologist as I'm not one, but as mentioned earlier, this is just an aside anyways - this argument doesn't actually pose any threat to zoophilia's morality or legality because it's more of a rhetorical question than an actual argument.
Conclusion
I'm always happy to listen to new arguments, but I've never, ever heard one that convincingly demonstrates that either a) Zoophilia is inherently immoral, or b) Zoophilia should be illegal. As such, we must accept the "null hypothesis" I mentioned at the beginning of this post until proven otherwise - that Zoophilia is indeed moral and should be legal, at least in all cases where the animal cannot be shown to be put at risk of harm.
1 agentofthenigh 2018-01-03
Hahaha I cant believe you said any of that.
1 agentofthenigh 2018-01-03
In regard too your arguments for ones right to engage in "non-harmful" sexual activity and engagement, I will simply say between man and dog, man is considered the intellectually superior species, you can say the animal was not harmed and merely used as a willing participant for sexual gratification of a female human, but as the intellectually superior species is not on us morally to look at the act and decide, does it in any way elevate the happiness of said dog? Doea it in any way contribute to the dog or the dogs species? And most importantly does it cause confusion within the dog? Your argument is well spoken and written as though we are in a debate class but I do believe that engagement of sexual activity with animals is symptom of a much deeper problem than simply allowing people the choice without legal repercussion.
1 SlowJay11 2018-01-03
Tl;dr
1 slavefeet918 2018-01-03
Ayyy I’m in there