In my opinion it's morally wrong to do it. I think same as people here, a dog isn't a TOY.

There are many who do this, as there are quite a few folks who treat animals or really any partner as sex objects. At its best, you have a shallow short-lived experience with the animal, at its worst you've got rape.

I think it's pointless and morally wrong to take a dog from the pound, or a stray for that matter, use it for your own purposes and return it. Aside from being highly shallow and selfish, it's also potentially harmful to the animal involved imho.

Try giving the animal a home for the long run, build a rewarding partnership with them, you'll find the sex much more enjoyable and long lasting. Animals are beings worthy of respect and love, not sex toys, if you want one of those, get an inflatable sheep or soemthing.

TK

Wow. Good one!

LadyR, I asked for opinions, not insults.
Secondly, don't tell me what to think and what not to think.

What soooooooooooooooooooo many have tried to say and HAVE said -
Well maybe put it this way :
Imagine your a child in an orphanage . I "nice" couple comes in and adopts you .
They take you home show you this wonderful room with all the toys you could ever want. Then they feed you the best meal you have ever eaten , including dessert of course. After this wonderful meal they play games with you , make you feel well like your wanted and loved. What could be better .
Then all of a sudden they jump up and say "lets go, time to go "
The look on your face just begs the question, huh??????
You all get in the car and go. Then you see that they have brought you back to the orphanage and then they leave .
Here you are after such a wonderful time , wondering what you've done wrong , why they ,or anyone for that matter , can't love you ............................


In other words what you asked for opinions about is just plain WRONG. Of course thats just my opinion.

just where in LadyR's post do you read an insult? the one prior by bendertiger was hostile -and you laughed it off -but your attacking LadyR for non-existant insults?

forthermore she didn't tell you what to "think" -she clearly outlined the difference in your initial statement and what you were back peddling it out to be after you obviously realized how horrendous the mere sugestion was -"think" was just a word in the sentence that she used to show that you were now trying to disguise and change your initial statement...

finally -where do you get off talking to a mod with all that disrespect? -ummm -if not now -then soon -so here it is in advance -bye-bye!

well have any of considered to this what the dogs feelings would be.

Yes Prill...Most of us have, as you've known had you read the entire thread.....


LadyR

This is getting old.

Again, we're back to the "only pet owners are ever allowed to have beastsex" thing. Again, the prevailing opinion is that if you have sex with an animal in some kind of committed, loving relationship, it's perfectly wonderful and great and perfect and hot apple pie and baseball and stars and stripes forever. The implication is that pet owners are all just crooning sweet nothings in their pet's ears, staring lovingly into their eyes, and sharing their beds with them every night (whereas we nasty non-pet-owners would probably kick a puppy and laugh).

But if you just want sex -- even if you're not HURTING the animal... even if what the animal WANTS by its behavior is clearly to f*ck you senseless -- then you're immoral and nasty and perverted.

That, frankly, is total and utter hypocrisy. Pet owners are not some sainted, perfect class of people, nor are non-pet-owners horrid monsters. Sex with animals is not in itself bad or harmful, or we are all perverts and monsters, just as the bigots in the world will claim. And just wanting sex with no emotional strings attached is not a crime if all parties agree to it. It may not be your cup of tea, and it's usually not mine, but it doesn't have to be -- it's frankly none of your or my business what or who someone is having sex with, as long as it's fully consensual.

As to taking an animal and "using it like a toy" and returning it... That's awfully strong language. It sure makes it sound worse than "taking an animal, giving it some sexual loving that it may never have a chance to experience otherwise, and then, regretfully returning it to the same situation it was already in because you've decided you can't ethically keep it as a lifelong pet." Different words, same actions, vastly different tone. People sometimes stoop to inflammatory rhetoric like this when they are unable or unwilling to formulate a reasoned, cohesive argument against a point. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether that was the intent here.

Some folks may have realized that attacking the question of "is it okay to take an animal home from the pound just for [consensual] sex and then return it to the pound" from the viewpoint of "it's bad because it's just for sex" is dangerous, because that calls into question all other beast-sex. In simpler terms, if it's the SEX that's so bad, then we all need to take a long, hard look at what we're doing on here. If sex with animals is bad in itself, then we're all bad people. Do we really want to prove that?

If it's the "just for" part of "just for sex" that's bad, I have to ask anyone reading this -- have you never wanted to just f*ck? With your animal or a human, it doesn't matter. Have you ever just needed sex? Have you ever had a "quickie" -- with anyone? If you have, then you've done something "just for sex" too, and you're, in theory, just as depraved and sick as those horrible, horrible hypothetical people taking animals home from the pound just for sex. Of course, I'm sure that you, like me, probably realize there's nothing wrong with just wanting sex with no strings attached. Even if it's not what you want, that doesn't make it wrong, just not your choise. Yes, it would be bad if you lied or hurt your partner to get it, or forced them into it, but assuming that nobody's going to do that to the animals in question is a critical assumption I'm making here. So it's most likely not just wanting sex that's bad either. If it's okay for you and I to do, it's okay for someone else to do (as long as it's consensual, blah blah -- you know the routine).

So if it's NOT the sex that's bad and it's not the "just for sex" that's bad -- if it's the taking the animal from one environment, temporarily putting them into another environment, and then returning them that's bad -- then why is this situation different from petsitting, for instance? It's the same basic situation -- taking an animal out of one home (for whatever reason) for a short time, *not harming it*, and then returning it. Why is THIS case so morally bankrupt, but dogsitters are still okay?

Or is it, after all, the sex that's bad? Is it fine to do this -- dump your dog with a stranger -- when it's convenient for you (if you need to go out of town for a day or two, say), but horribly perverted to do this when the other person wants sex? I hope nobody's making that argument, given how obviously hypocritical it is.

Or do we all, like the bigots in larger society, "just know" that it's wrong but can't be bothered to explain why?

I am like a broken record on this topic because I refuse to accept insults like "you're a sick f*ck" as valid arguments. If I did, I would have to come to the conclusion that beastiality itself is wrong and perverted and that we're all "sick f*cks," for even entertaining the idea of sex with animals since that's what most people on the street will loudly tell you about beastiality. I don't want to come to that conclusion. Do you? If not, then maybe we're all better off using reasoned debate than a string of insults.

I've been warned (by an anonymous member who'll remain anonymous) that challenging the "majority opinion" on BeastForum is a quick way to get banned. They were trying to save me from that "fate worse than death." I really hope that's not true.

your continued efforts to revert a moral ethic into an overall blanket statement for beastiality and zoos is disturbing -and very sad. :( very very. :( :(

Hm..Petsitting is a completely different situation because the dog you are petsitting most likely has an owner and a happy life,while this is NOT true for dogs in the shelter.

btw, this wasn't a very keen inclusion on your part. It is apparent that your "anonymous" friend is mis-informed, and beware because you have been lead down a trecherous path. You are very welcome to hold an opposing view here on the forum to the "majority opinion" (otherwise you would have banned long ago), HOWEVER questioning the ACTIONS of the mods or showing disrespect, is indeed a fatal mistake, and raising the issue won't get you to far either....

Atomx,

Indeed this discussion is old, very old. In fact I wonder if deja news has any remnants of it from the 90s when it came through a number of times.

AtomX> Again, we're back to the "only pet owners are ever allowed to have beastsex" thing.

Being an owner, or at least, Knowing the owner means that you will have all the information you need to make it a safe positive experience (even if all you want is SEX.)

The idea is NOT that having sex just for pleasure is bad. It's that using an animal for that purpose without consideration for it's own health and life is bad. If you fence hop, pick up a stray or pound puppy, you can't possibly know the animal and cannot possibly know all of the consequences of such an act. Nor is it possible to fully know the animal, it's likes desires and preferences, thus making communication and therefore consent difficult.

Sex with animals (bestiality) is not in and of itself morally wrong, but having sex without regard for your partner certainly can be.

Add to this the issue of "pet ownership." Anyone who takes a dog into their life is taking on a set of responsibilities for that dog's physical and emotional health needs as well as the cost of food vet bills and general overall care.

I myself wouldn't want someone I did not know having sex with them or jeopardizing their health and well being. I could just as well transfer that feeling to any other zoo or non-zoo dog owner.

The issue of strays and pound puppies is a bit different. The act of taking them in just for sex is quite short sighted and selfish. If you cared enough for the animal to give it a few moments of pleasure, why not extend yourself a bit further. Would it change your mind if you knew it would be destroyed the very next day?

Aomx> Is it fine to do this -- dump your dog with a stranger -- when it's convenient for you (if you need to go out of town for a day or two, say), but horribly perverted to do this when the other person wants sex? I hope nobody's making that argument, given how obviously hypocritical it is.

There is no connection here between your hypotheticals. I always tend to find responsible people to care for my animals when I am away as any responsible "pet owner" would do. Granted, having animals does indeed limit the amount of time one can spend away from home on vacations and also how long one's work day can actually be. This is just a consideration every individual has to make when bringing a dog into their lives.

Sharing my animal with another human is a completely different matter. I can only think of one person on this earth (my mate) who I would let my canine be alone with (sexually.) It's a trust issue. Until a person earns my trust I assume the worst in this department. To, as the prez of the US puts it AIR on the side of caution.

TK

this would make you 15 this year. Is that an age limit issue? can someone be a member of this board and be 15???

1997 is 8 years ago. If he was 10 in 1997 that makes him 18 this year. He is however one month short of 18 still. So an account suspension is in order. Thanks for pointing it out. We have 60.000 members here and of course a few will slip thru.



LadyR

This post has been edited by LadyRottweiler on Apr 4 2005, 09:25 AM

:(

That's not very respectfull to a moderator :elvis:


Why are you here :thinking:

Tmwtp

This post has been edited by Tmwtp on Apr 4 2005, 09:10 PM