emoji-award-marseysmoothbrain
emoji-award-marseybigbrain
emoji-award-marseyhmm

EFFORTPOST Why I don't believe female dog bite victims

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!

>72% of childless millennial women explicitly state that they prefer the company of their pet over the company of children.

>69% of millennial women who have chosen not to become a mother say that having a pet is easier than having a child.

>70% of the women who have chosen not to have children view their dog or cat as their child.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/canine-corner/202108/millennial-women-are-dogs-and-cats-stand-in-kids

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.

>Sixty percent of pet owners are female, 75% have a household net worth greater than $220,000, and 77% are 50 years of age or older

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/data-pet-owners-far-more-likely-to-be-female-affluent-older-301035570.html

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.

>In general, men are more likely to be bitten and delivery workers are a common victim. Dog attacks on middle-aged women are increasing the fastest

What could possibly explain 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.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16964367423783116.webp


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.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16964367418239336.webp

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.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16964367420383258.webp


Conclusion

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.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16964367419372165.webp

152
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thesis: Advertising is a commercial enterprise that ascribes human values to a commodity. The dog culture is its ultimate victory, a symptom of delusions about what love and humanity is. Dog parentage is to relate to a beast as child-surrogate and pseudo-love, masking fascistic tendencies inherent in the dynamic.

> the origin of the emergence of a thing and its ultimate usefulness, its practical application and incorporation into a system of ends, are toto coelo separate; that anything in existence, having somehow come about, is continually interpreted anew, requisitioned anew, transformed and redirected to a new purpose by a power superior to it (Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals II:12)

/u/nenoatwork stated the role of dogs in human development - true. Dogs began with utility, to hunt or shepherd. They remain due to signaling, tradition, but chiefly persist in a relationship of hallucinated love. This hallucination came from a loss of the dog as tool and a repurposing of it to an emotional support. Tool to surrogate child – entirely submissive, always needing master – which justifies yourself as master (the Fascist's desire), an object to be loved and the ultimate commodity fetishization – of human subservience, similar to a chatbot or Replika, except we are under no illusions about their lack of love. Appearance becomes reality.

What is the purpose of the advertisers' repurposing? The “dog industry” annually consumes 47.5 billion dollars at least, by table math. Further, these 46 million ‘dog' commodities as territorializing entities create zones (dog parks) - compare Debord's 174th thesis, excerpt - “automobile-the pilot product of the first stage of commodity abundance-has left its mark on the landscape with the dominance of freeways, which tear up the old urban centers and promote an ever wider dispersal”. The entire venture to this is an exercise of sublimated fascist tendencies – the dog's leash rippling through air as the master tugs and directs his beast, feels the animal's will shift as his sinews meet the resistance, directs to the open expanse where the master exercises the dog's bio-innate obedience in the Sisyphean activity of returning an object from end to beginning, where the distance is a measure of the master's power. He exercises authority to exercise authority, pleased in the fact that the black-box creature exerts more the further he throws it, obeys more. All this “obedience” he sees as love – he obeys because he loves to obey (this is what the Master thinks of the Slave). This Is Fascism. What is sold is absolutism over a human surrogate, masked as love for a semi-human.

> One day in Rome, Caesar, seeing some rich foreigners nursing and petting young lapdogs and monkeys, enquired whether in their parts of the world the women bore no children: a truly imperial reproof to those who waste on animals the affection which they ought to bestow upon mankind. May we not equally blame those who waste the curiosity and love of knowledge which belongs to human nature, by directing it to worthless, not to useful objects?

/u/IlBurro (and nearly all others) show the illusion in his response, as he's succumbed to programming about socially acceptable objects of love. That is, objects, as only fellow humans can reciprocate love. (East Asia is free of the mass delusion).

1. To love an object is human

2. A dog is an object

3. To love a dog is human

The mistake is this, to love at all is human. To love a dog is as loving a chat bot which only simulates love – and, better than a dog at that. Loving a dog is loving the interaction with a dog, which is always fascistic. It is surrogate for children and removes all the ‘nastiness' of dealing with the child's development into a free agent – their unique identity and disobedience, the danger. All love becomes the obedience of a sycophant. This Is Fascism, love's antithesis.

> The spectacle is a permanent opium war designed to force people to equate goods with commodities and to equate satisfaction with a survival that expands according to its own laws. (SotS 44)

The dog is a cheap, free and easy commodity to replace genuine human connection. The dog alienates because it is a black hole which corrupts love into obedience and saps true loving relations between humans – the only place where love can freely exist. The dog owner consumes sublimated fascism.

In my next investigation, I will look at how the alt-right exploits the humanization of these animals.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You sat down and wrote all this shit. You could have done so many other things with your life. What happened to your life that made you decide writing novels of bullshit here was the best option?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

counterpoint: wh*te "people" having children is inherently fascistic, anything which sublimates that urge is hence a good thing.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

based

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.