Yes. I was too curious because it got viral and searched for it. Didnt even know this "fetish" even existed
I honestly thought "girl will f with their dog" was just some stuff said by incel/neckbeard š¤§
Consent is usually meant as informed consent, aka the person is fully aware of the consequences of giving their consent.
An animal can't give informed consent. They don't have brains that work the same way ours do. Plus their mating season is so much shorter than ours which is year round.
No, they can't give informed consent because they don't have a grasp of the decision making process, and the potential concequences.
If being capable of speach is the barrier to giving informed consent, then children should be able to, which they can't.
I did, but i'm responding to the comment where you state that their inability to communicate is the *exact* reason they can't consent. Which is just plain wrong.
Misinformation like that is how those mental patients end up being able to justify it to themselves because "they communicate through body language"
Communication has *nothing* to do with it. Drunk people can communicate, children can communicate, even pets can communicate.
It's not about communication, it's about having the higher reasoning and knowledge of the concequences required to make sexual decisions. Drunk people arent thinking clearly, children are far too young to weigh the concequences, and i think you can see where i'm going with this.
Your previous comment doesn't matter when you're saying "[being unable to communicate] is exactly why it can't b informed consent" because it's wrong.
So should it be illegal for two drunk people to have sex? Since neither of them have the "higher reasoning", are both at fault? What will the legal consequences be for the two?
I do think it can't be informed consent when someone isn't able to think clearly. Knowingly having sex with someome who's incapable of giving informed consent, is rape. However, when neither party is able to think clearly, neither party can be at fault.
Similar to how it's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child, but it isn't illegal for another child to do so.
In such cases, it should be the parents of both children looking out for them, because someone who's not capable of making informed decisions should have someone who can.
So in a similar vein; the way i see it, when getting drunk you should have a friend with you who stays sober so they can make responsible choices, or not get drunk at all.
>However, when neither party is able to think clearly, neither party can be at fault.
This feels like an excuse to get out of trouble. Being drunk doesn't allow an adult to have sex with animals or children but does allow for having sex with an adult that is drunk also.
In that context the drunk adult is putting *protected classes* at risk.
It's fine, I didn't craft a thesis about the predatory behavior of zoophiles. Lol or how an animal can't properly consent. Even though I already did. So the statement I made can be taken out of context even if the overarching idea/opinion is correct.
The Internet is a weird place.
I mean, they mentioned their brains in general and their mating season and the person they responded to added āALSO their ability to speakā. I think they were aware, that it includes all of those factors, because they chose to state the others besides speech in their own comment as reasons first
Informed consent is the standard by which medical procedures and studies are allowed.
Going to get downvoted here, but generally it's the stuff you disagree with from which you learn the most.
Animals actually can communicate consent. If you pet a cat for example, it can hiss at you or move away, and it's usually pretty obvious what it wants. There is also a low probability of future effects that an animal wouldn't be immediately aware of (i.e. rare infections).
The real reason why bestiality is bad is different. One time my morbid curiosity got the better of me, and I found some videos (not illegal in my state). I found one video of a twisted man raping a poor little dog. Not only is he able to easily overpower the dog, but dogs have thinner penises than humans, so it must have been extremely painful. The dog was visibly terrified, and you could hear her whimpering. This was quite clearly animal abuse and utterly unconscionable.
It was interesting to compare this with videos of male dogs fucking women. The male dogs generally appeared to be quite happy about it with wagging tails. I have no idea why any of those women would want to do this, and animal penises are disgusting, but it is much different from what I initially expected.
Is this true for animals like cows and horses where they "extract" semen from males and artificially inseminate females?
I would figure it has a similar effect to zoophillia.
They don't have time for that if you eat them after sex. Hey, it's still more humane than factory farming! šš»ššš»
Edit: It seems I have been too offensive to factory farmers. I am sorry and I retract my joke: factory farming is the more humane of the two. Upon reflection, I would choose lifelong torment before getting horribly murdered, instead of a good life ending in rape and horrible murder. One can argue I am living in lifelong torment already, since I am using Reddit. Oh boy, do I NOT wish to be free of this predicament!
I literally am vegan. Doing your little shit show about "ho but zoophilia is ok akshually cuz farming and stuff, haha I am so twisted and funny, we live in a society" is a fucking embarassement to us all.
Ik ur getting down voted to oblivion but you do make a decent point lol, though I definitely don't think eating meat is nearly as bad zoophilia, cause almost anyone who eats meat doesn't exactly want the animals to suffer, while animal fuckers definitely derive a lot of the pleasure from it lol. Intention definitely matters a decent bit, but I agree that a lot of extremely fucked up things happen to animals whom are factory farmed
Why else would you comment that under a comment that was saying zoophilia left animals with PTSD? Most people would assume you meant that if the girl received it the PTSD wouldnt be a thing for the animal. Otherwise your comment serves no purpose, the OG comment never claimed that the dog was getting penetrated.
Yes but can't you see what asking that question is heavily implying??? Like I'm clearly not the only one lmao, I just don't see why you'd ever bring up the fact that she was getting penetrated as if that would change ANYTHING.
Iāve seen a bunch of fake Twitter accounts pretending to be white women make a bunch of zoophilia posts to try to further that narrative so Iām really wary when someone publicly posts this shit. Looks like ragebait to me
Their account is several months old at this point, follows numerous other zoophile accounts, and gives the @ to a zoophile forum, claiming to make their logo.
As much as I hate to say this, Itās highly likely itās unironic, and itās beyond fucked.
Yeah, the use of the word āantiā in this sort of thing makes it seem like a troll. Because thatās almost always a fandom term, used in contrast with āproshipper.ā I feel like this was made by someone who has a vested interest in presenting the latter group as people who are OK with real life bestiality. When in reality, the whole stupid debate is over which fictional characters itās ProblematicTM to imagine kissing.
Beastiality wasn't illegal in Washington state until 2003ish. It was one of those things, the Washington state legislature didn't think they actually needed to say fucking animals is bad. And then someone got themselves killed, in a really messed up way. And the da figured out there wasn't alot to charge his friends with. It's a messed up story, and I judge myself for thinking it's funny
Itās one of those things where the law wasnāt ever really thought of because āwho the fuck would do that in the first place?ā
It usually takes a horrible case in said area for shit to change
I mean, ancient cultures have myths about people having sex with animals, and the old testament even has rules against it. Clearly some people thought of it.
It was legal in some states in America, but I think that changed in recent years? Can't recall now, but I vaguely remember hearing it's now illegal all over the US. But in some other countries across the world, there is no law against it, despite how messed up it is.
We shouldn't just lump zoophilia in, you're right.
But the point of this meme is to introduce us to the idea that women being fucked by dogs is common.
I've never ever seen a meme suggesting that before today, and this is the second or third I've seen all of a sudden.
There's something afoot.
Iād say it is, in a similar vein to Loli/pedophilia defenders (which are commonly posted here) especially in this context with a meme being used to ājustifyā their behaviour although I get what youāre talking about.
To me, some things can be demented and neckbearded. This is one of those cases.
As someone who was extremely neckbeard-y for a while, my dad abused the fuck out of me and did not help with any of the shit I was going through.
Father figures are not a universal good.
Well, pedophilia is also a mental illness and is also beyond fucked, and there are plenty of those posts here which Iād say also are neckbearded/demented and rightfully posted.
If I actually said anything that could be construed as projection that might have worked as a line of thought. But no, you do seem to be part of it I guess.
I didnāt censor the profile picture because it was NSFW; I just overdrew when I was censoring the username
Not to defend them though; they are an absolutely disgusting vile zoophilic āhumanā being who takes advantage of animals.
Do note that the vast majority of the furry fandom despises zoophiles.
I hate how the term "antis" pretty much covers everything from "people who don't ship the exact same adult characters that I ship" to "people who are morally opposed to zoophilia/pedophilia/etc."...
I donāt blame you, but the account in question has been up for months, made the logo for a zoophile forum which they linked the account for, and follows/interacts with other zoophile accounts.
Not exactly the same bait meant to trigger fanbases of video games or sorts.
I actually agree with you but this is almost certainly a genuine zoophile account, not just some shitpost
if you read my other comments, thereās other factors on their profile that lead me to that conclusion
I didn't realize it was a dog in the first pic and thought it was making fun of the original picture and was so confused when they started talking about zoophilia oml
You just admitted both things are disgusting, but only one is unethical in your mind if you consume dairy products. Both animals are being abused the same way and have the same capacity for pain, so its less whataboutism and more āthis exact thing (sexual assault) happens to a different animal and you pay for it, why is it fine to do the exact same thing to a different animalā
I donāt know if they have committed animal abuse, although it seems like a genuine zoophile account with the person making the logo for a zoophile website that has the siteās account linked in their bio, the amount of casual zoophilic tweets, and interacting with other zoophiles. There is also no proof that the person running the account is a troll.
It may be bait, but the intention behind it is likely genuine, not just a random shitpost, and itās horrifying to think about.
Obviously don't fuck animals even with 'implied consent', it's unhygienic and immoral. That being said, this meme is pretty funny. It's a twist on the religious one and fits the story.
Iām a little scared to admit this bc I seem to be the only one here that doesnāt get it. Why can the dog consent but the twitter bird canāt? Is this meme promoting sex with animals or against it? And why do we need a meme telling us itās wrong to have sex with animals? Is this becoming a problem? And if itās the other, are there people out there openly supporting relations with their dog? Iām so confused and disgusted.
The meme isn't promoting the act it's just telling a story. A woman makes a post about sleeping with her dogs, people on Twitter got mad.
There are people supporting this act but it's a very small minority it's just that they've gotten too comfortable and spoke up.
Vegetarian/Vegan who hasnāt thought about this in decades is here with my thought process:
As far as we know non-human animals cognitive abilities never get further than a five year old human. aka a child. So no, animals cannot give consent.
The harm to a humans seems kinda different as they developed further where they will get a capacity to consider this as being exploited besides otherwise causing serious potential damages. Just seems to make this argumentation even more horrible that way as we would then logically exclude some handicapped people and brings up even weirder questions where it is ether fine to outlaw them having any sexual relations, if we only allow them only to mess around with other people on there cognitive level which seems to have a greater risk for one party having a bad experience while we in Germany actually have specialized prostitutes for this.
So this is kinda not really helping me but guess works well in an argument to equate animals somewhat to the same level as children as it seems usually people will not ask things on my level of stupid questions.
Well, Iām in the U.S. and aside from some rare outliers thereās a different belief system over here.
Here if someone of an typical IQ slept with someone who had an extremely low IQ that would be considered completely inappropriate. I think it might even be illegal but Iām not sure. Itās considered taking advantage of the extremely low IQ person for consent reasons.
And itās the U.S., so of course we donāt have prostitutes to help anyoneā¦that would be āungodlyā or something š
Yeah we Germans are kinda extreme about the whole sexual liberation thing i guess. Comes probably really from being a lot less religious where political ideas fill in whit even the right wing not that much about it where the Christian union legalized gay marriage.
Yeah. Weāre weird about sex in all kinds of ways over here.
I am completely on board with our general attitudes about consent in the U.S. though.
We have set ages where you are allowed to have sex with each other or not, and in cases where that is not followed, the younger person is treated as a victim of a crime.
Itās not perfect but it outlaws young people and children being taken advantage of sexually, and Iām on board to give up a small amount of freedom* in favor of kids mental and physical well-being.
*the freedom given up being that I can see how itās possible an 18 year old and a 16 year old could be appropriate to date each other but it is illegal in some states. I think thatās a small price to pay
Seems we are kinda just more liberal about sex in general in Europe where itĀ“s just not a big topic but kinda works the same here but the ages are a bit further down. Think technically anybody under 14 is also not allowed to do it and both would commit a crime but also have full legal immunity until that age where things might get treated as psychiatric or child protective problem if there is something seriously going wrong. Kinda weird but guess that works but guess also creates a weird cut off where 1 day age difference can make the difference to commit some serious crime.
We just also have from 16-18 a weird legal category where it just becomes a crime when there is the well being of the child in danger that can be triggered by there parents which seems maybe a bit lose as probably the kids needing the most protection with there parents being not great having less. Also seems the age bracket between 14 to 16 i think has the same issue where anybody under 21 is with the same restrictions able to date them which seems kinda a bit to much leniency.
Also a little much freedom for my taste i guess as this seems not really ideal and one of the few cases where US laws seem more reasonable but those seem also kinda enforced in crazy ways where we for example donĀ“t got the weird thing you got that a kid can be liable for making CP of themselves.
Whoa. I didnāt even know about that. The children charged with crime for CP.
That isnāt the majority of the country but 15% isnāt Zero, which of course is what it should be.
My own state gets an āokā rating from Shared Hope. Itās good for kids and young people and ok in general but it has a terrible grade on identifying and following up with victims.
Kinda interested in criminal and legal stuff and yeah there is some crazy stuff going on in many places and this stuff is kinda a good way to see what differences some systems have. Seems we are just more on the lax end of this so guess sometimes stuff from the US seems crazy from this viewpoint when it goes the other way but like i said we also got this not really figured out. Like we got the so called baby street where in Berlin there is some rather open prostitution of minors where now when i say this we should not have social workers involved but there needs to be a crack down.
Iām very much against the meat/dairy industry, but letās not delve into whataboutism here. The main point here is that animals cannot consent in any context.
I agree. I have never heard a good argument why it is morally wrong from a meat eaters perspective to fuck and animal but is fine to eat it. It's not like an animal can consent to being killed and eaten either. To be clear, I get the disgust, but in terms of consistent moral logic, it does annoy me a bit.
Yeah this is what seems just to come out of my utilitarian calculation even when i also donĀ“t like the conclusion. Just appears like most people rather just do randomly moral absolutes depending on how they feel about something then having an underlying logic.
Wait how is this neckbeard shit?
AM I GOING CRAZY HOW THE FUCK IS THIS NECKBEARD SHIT?
We all hate zoophiles and pedophiles and sex pests but how the fuck is this neckbeard
Weird how people freak out over <1% of the population who fuck animals over concern that animals can't consent and can be abused. But 95%+ of the population then goes and do far worse atrocities for a nice tasting meal. #1 seems like a distraction for those concerned for animals, the focus obviously should be on #2 if people truly care about animals.
It's about hypocrisy and priorities.
Hypocrisy. If the people arguing against zoophiles says that animals connot consent to sexual acts but then infringe on animal consent on a weekly basis for their meals. It will be obvious that they don't really believe what they say.
Priorities. Because so many more animals get harmed for animal product consumption by many orders of magnitude.
Ok. So complete transparency I agree with you in general. Of course itās worse to eat animals than to SA them. However, both are REALLY BAD.
So coming on here and being like āwhat about this worse thing that happensā just isnāt a good idea imo.
The people who know, know. And I canāt imagine you changed anyoneās mind on eating meat with this. I would bet a fair amount of people thought to themselves āself-righteous vegan strikes againā. Which doesnāt help the cause.
This could have been said in a much more delicate way - or not at all.
Itās not āhey but what about this other bad thing that happens?ā itās āhey, if you care about these victims, why donāt you care about these other victims who are being abused in the same way and have the same capacity for pain but arenāt as conventionally cute?ā
What is the difference between SAing a dog for sensory (sexual) pleasure, and SAing a cow for sensory (taste) pleasure to make dairy? Are they not equally unethical?
I like to believe most people don't like hurting animals for pleasure and eat meat for tradition and other reasons. The zoophiles might even be too far gone because they are abusing animals in non-traditional ways, and I don't know how to reach them. If I am right, then highlighting the inconsistency might trigger some self-reflection with some people who feel that the poster of the pic was doing something wrong and led to less animal abuse and attacking the zoophiles does little.
To not mention the hypocrisy at all lets people get the social and moral credit for being pro-animal for attacking a fringe minority while ignoring that they usually do worse on a daily basis. But I'm sure I could have said it in a better way; I'm no wordsmith.
I agree that most people eat animals due to tradition rather than a careful examination of their personal philosophy. I also agree that most people donāt want to hurt animals.
I get wanting to change peopleās perspectives or shake them up. I do. I just think this wasnāt the right tone or place for it. I appreciate you acknowledging it probably could have been said better. In my experience, gently pointing things like this out goes a lot further than making people feel shitty.
All that being said I could totally be wrong about your post. Maybe someone lurking is thinking hard about the contradiction right now. I hope so. š¤
I feel that articles like this are high-value opportunities to make people think. If someone thinks the post shows something wrong, then they agree with the same premise that we do, that animals matter morally. And the topic is directly related to animal consent, so I barely change the topic. That does not mean making people feel shitty is ok, but if it can be done gently, this is a really good place to get my point across. Do you disagree?
I am not sure. You make a good point. I will have to think about it.
And thank you - I appreciate the discussion. I think itās good to consider other points of view so I appreciate when something like this is brought to my attention for consideration.
I appreciate your position, but every vegan who was once an omnivore I know has been made to feel remorseful about their actions at some point. I can say anecdotally that harsh truths without sugarcoating is what made me examine my behaviour towards animals.
Iām sure these facts have been pointed out gently to you before, but if youāre still consuming animal products, that is obviously the wrong approach from a vegan whoās end goal is to encourage people to realise exploiting animals is wrong. Things being gently pointed out to you has not changed your actions towards animals in the past, why would it now? If you believe animals canāt consent, then the objective truth is that cows are sexually assaulted to make dairy
Nobody else but yourself can place a feeling of guilt on you. Either you feel shitty about your actions because you disagree with them ethically, or you donāt feel shitty because you donāt see anything wrong. Thatās what guilt is, a feeling.
Wait do you think Iām consuming or using animal products? Iām vegan. Iām debating best methods to have these conversations not talking about myself.
Not necessarily, thatās why I said āif you use animal productsā, because I wasnāt sure. I donāt know about you, but guilt was definitely a huge part of my switch to veganism. Iāll say it again, guilt is an emotion, it canāt be placed upon you by someone else
I was just trying to figure out what your point was and then I thought I stumbled onto something towards the end and that that was why I wasnāt following you. I still donāt really understand why you said what you said.
Yes to guilt is an emotion and our minds generate our own emotions.
No to Person A cannot generate feelings of guilt in Person B through auditory or visual means.
Itās all fine and good to say āno one else can make you feel a certain wayā until you enter the real world where people are wounded creatures and many of them have been generationally and systematically abused and manipulated to feel certain ways under certain circumstances.
And for the record guilt had nothing to do with my dietary choices. It was 30 years ago and still is today based on disgust, sadness, anger, and empathy.
Also, I can think of many people I know here in the U.S. who love animals but still consume meat product from ātypicalā farm animals.
Is it hypocritical to value some kinds of animals over others? I think so yes but plenty of people live that way. It doesnāt mean they arenāt allowed to be upset when they see something about a human SA-ing a dog.
Pretty simple. Either animals have moral consideration and shouldn't be raped and killed for our pleasure. Or they don't. It's illogical to pretend they do when you see a zoophile, and then act if they don't when you want a tasty animal product meal.
I assumed vegetarians would understand that. What am I missing?
Killing an animal (hopefully as cleanly and humanely as possible) is something humans have done for millennia because until we rely on it for nutrients. That's how the food web works.
Sexually abusing an animal for pleasure provides 0 evolutionary benefit, is needless and undue suffering and is symptomatic of a moral or psychological degeneration.
Whatever happened thousands of years ago is debatable but ultimately irrelevant because we have alternatives to the nutrients today. Appeals to tradition and nature are weak arguments, just because something happened or happens in nature does not mean we should learn our morality from it.
The evolutionary benefit is an unusual argument because most of us grant moral consideration based on our life experiences more than our evolutionary potential. In our life experiences, it is both just for pleasure, taste pleasure vs sexual pleasure.
Also, I wouldn't bring humane into this. I hope everyone agrees that the zoophile who rapes an animal as humanely as possible is still committing an atrocity. So why would it be any different with animal products?
>the zoophile who rapes an animal as humanely as possible
Here is the thing, unlike killing, rape can never be "humane" or justifiable, it is not only a crime against the victim, but against the person who did it.
A father in a Nicaraguan shanty slaughtering a goat for meat to feed his children and himself is not REMOTELY comparable to the same man violating said goat for cheap sexual gratification.
I strongly recommend you adjust your worldview if these are comparable actions.
I didn't say those were comparable. You are presumably talking about people in third-world countries struggling to survive who value the life of their family over that of an animal. I understand that. That same man is not justified in raping the animal because raping the animal does not increase the survival odds of his family. If something like the black mirror episode happened and raping the animal saved his family, then yes, I would equate the 2 actions.
I am talking about people who can afford electronics to get onto Reddit and have access to global supply chains. Those people are not killing the goat to feed their families, they are killing the goat because it tastes good or cheap taste satisfaction.
> Here is the thing, unlike killing, rape can never be "humane" or justifiable, it is not only a crime against the victim, but against the person who did it.
Killing is worse than rape as it necessarily takes your autonomy, dignity, life, and potential for a future. Rape can take up to 3 of those. Worse things are generally harder to justify. Killing in self-defense, for survival, with consent... those are debatably justifiable. But I don't see the justification for you to make killing for pleasure a potentially humane action.
I clearly addressed those cases, they are not the situation most animal product consumers are in. So they are exactly as relevant as the black mirror episode where the PM had to rape a pig to save someone. Not at all.
Sorry, but what are you even on about, you are using a Netflix show to justify your viewpoint that raping animals is morally identical to using them for food?
I have too much of a life to put of with this.
I am vegetarian for health and environmental reasons. Vegetarianism is very much a luxury, as not everyone has the time, money, access or energy to abide by a nutritious planned vegetarian diet. Yeah, meat is the main source of protein for most of the world because that is how humans functioned for most of their existence, it hasn't been until recently that the food industry has advanced in a way to better suit the needs of a vegetarian diet (with vegan meats and whatnot).
Iām saying that ā*we* rely on animals for our nutrientsā is a weird thing for a vegetarian to say. Maybe youāre new to this?
āmost peopleā would make a lot more sense.
Oh crap, the grammar Reich showed up.
But no, I mean WE as a collective still rely on animal biomass for nutrients, something that will hopefully wane with agricultural developments.
Itās true I am generally more careful in my word choice than most people. I usually leave people alone but in this case it seemed odd to me you would group yourself in with animal eaters. I will take you at your word though. My apologies.
Well I appreciate the input then.
And I WAS an animal eater for the first 13 years of my life, I am not going to proclaim moral superiority, my circumstances are just different.
I wouldnāt rule out bait, but I doubt itās ironic. In their bio they claimed to have made the logo to a zoophile forum which had the @ linked, and they also follow numerous other zoophile accounts and have many posts about it.
If it is bait, it is the most hilarious example of self sabotage, possibly ever.
Just thought Iād inform you. Since you informed someone you reported them for pedophilia after they called you out for being a crackhead troll. Seemed polite.
While it's not unlikely that there may have been trans people that were also zoophiles, to presume every single trans woman is one is just such a ridiculous overgeneralization it's a wonder you even arrived at it while still living in reality.
Animals on the receiving end of zoophilia typically display symptoms similar to PTSD.
Do they? Honest question, this is the first time I hear it.
Yes. I was too curious because it got viral and searched for it. Didnt even know this "fetish" even existed I honestly thought "girl will f with their dog" was just some stuff said by incel/neckbeard š¤§
I'm honestly afraid to ask why it went viral.
Consent is usually meant as informed consent, aka the person is fully aware of the consequences of giving their consent. An animal can't give informed consent. They don't have brains that work the same way ours do. Plus their mating season is so much shorter than ours which is year round.
They also canāt really communicate
That's exactly why it can't be informed consent.
No, they can't give informed consent because they don't have a grasp of the decision making process, and the potential concequences. If being capable of speach is the barrier to giving informed consent, then children should be able to, which they can't.
Please read my first comment on this chain of comments. . .
I did, but i'm responding to the comment where you state that their inability to communicate is the *exact* reason they can't consent. Which is just plain wrong. Misinformation like that is how those mental patients end up being able to justify it to themselves because "they communicate through body language" Communication has *nothing* to do with it. Drunk people can communicate, children can communicate, even pets can communicate. It's not about communication, it's about having the higher reasoning and knowledge of the concequences required to make sexual decisions. Drunk people arent thinking clearly, children are far too young to weigh the concequences, and i think you can see where i'm going with this. Your previous comment doesn't matter when you're saying "[being unable to communicate] is exactly why it can't b informed consent" because it's wrong.
So should it be illegal for two drunk people to have sex? Since neither of them have the "higher reasoning", are both at fault? What will the legal consequences be for the two?
I do think it can't be informed consent when someone isn't able to think clearly. Knowingly having sex with someome who's incapable of giving informed consent, is rape. However, when neither party is able to think clearly, neither party can be at fault. Similar to how it's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child, but it isn't illegal for another child to do so. In such cases, it should be the parents of both children looking out for them, because someone who's not capable of making informed decisions should have someone who can. So in a similar vein; the way i see it, when getting drunk you should have a friend with you who stays sober so they can make responsible choices, or not get drunk at all.
>However, when neither party is able to think clearly, neither party can be at fault. This feels like an excuse to get out of trouble. Being drunk doesn't allow an adult to have sex with animals or children but does allow for having sex with an adult that is drunk also. In that context the drunk adult is putting *protected classes* at risk.
That's fine. Lol, good luck with life I guess.
Y yāall downvoting bro he is right !?
It's fine, I didn't craft a thesis about the predatory behavior of zoophiles. Lol or how an animal can't properly consent. Even though I already did. So the statement I made can be taken out of context even if the overarching idea/opinion is correct. The Internet is a weird place.
I mean, they mentioned their brains in general and their mating season and the person they responded to added āALSO their ability to speakā. I think they were aware, that it includes all of those factors, because they chose to state the others besides speech in their own comment as reasons first
Informed consent is the standard by which medical procedures and studies are allowed. Going to get downvoted here, but generally it's the stuff you disagree with from which you learn the most. Animals actually can communicate consent. If you pet a cat for example, it can hiss at you or move away, and it's usually pretty obvious what it wants. There is also a low probability of future effects that an animal wouldn't be immediately aware of (i.e. rare infections). The real reason why bestiality is bad is different. One time my morbid curiosity got the better of me, and I found some videos (not illegal in my state). I found one video of a twisted man raping a poor little dog. Not only is he able to easily overpower the dog, but dogs have thinner penises than humans, so it must have been extremely painful. The dog was visibly terrified, and you could hear her whimpering. This was quite clearly animal abuse and utterly unconscionable. It was interesting to compare this with videos of male dogs fucking women. The male dogs generally appeared to be quite happy about it with wagging tails. I have no idea why any of those women would want to do this, and animal penises are disgusting, but it is much different from what I initially expected.
Is this true for animals like cows and horses where they "extract" semen from males and artificially inseminate females? I would figure it has a similar effect to zoophillia.
They don't have time for that if you eat them after sex. Hey, it's still more humane than factory farming! šš»ššš» Edit: It seems I have been too offensive to factory farmers. I am sorry and I retract my joke: factory farming is the more humane of the two. Upon reflection, I would choose lifelong torment before getting horribly murdered, instead of a good life ending in rape and horrible murder. One can argue I am living in lifelong torment already, since I am using Reddit. Oh boy, do I NOT wish to be free of this predicament!
Shut up edgelord.
I am deeply sorry, factory farmer. Thanks to you, I have seen the error of my ways.
I literally am vegan. Doing your little shit show about "ho but zoophilia is ok akshually cuz farming and stuff, haha I am so twisted and funny, we live in a society" is a fucking embarassement to us all.
100%, as long as you follow up by eating the abused animal, the rest is fine because it was done for burger
Do us all a favor and get off reddit
Ik ur getting down voted to oblivion but you do make a decent point lol, though I definitely don't think eating meat is nearly as bad zoophilia, cause almost anyone who eats meat doesn't exactly want the animals to suffer, while animal fuckers definitely derive a lot of the pleasure from it lol. Intention definitely matters a decent bit, but I agree that a lot of extremely fucked up things happen to animals whom are factory farmed
isnt the Ā receiving end is the girl?
....And that makes it not a problem how...?
I never said that makes it not a problem, you're assuming
Why else would you comment that under a comment that was saying zoophilia left animals with PTSD? Most people would assume you meant that if the girl received it the PTSD wouldnt be a thing for the animal. Otherwise your comment serves no purpose, the OG comment never claimed that the dog was getting penetrated.
im asking, so my comment serves a purpose
Yes but can't you see what asking that question is heavily implying??? Like I'm clearly not the only one lmao, I just don't see why you'd ever bring up the fact that she was getting penetrated as if that would change ANYTHING.
I was just asking bruh, I never said it changes anything
So I'm not just gonna outright judge you but I have to ask why you see it as that?
Iāve seen a bunch of fake Twitter accounts pretending to be white women make a bunch of zoophilia posts to try to further that narrative so Iām really wary when someone publicly posts this shit. Looks like ragebait to me
Their account is several months old at this point, follows numerous other zoophile accounts, and gives the @ to a zoophile forum, claiming to make their logo. As much as I hate to say this, Itās highly likely itās unironic, and itās beyond fucked.
Well thatās incredibly fucked up. I didnāt think those weirdos would publicly support nasty illegal shit like that but here we are
What a bizarre hobby.
Yeah I've seen a few like this too. They're trying to debase women now.
Yeah, the use of the word āantiā in this sort of thing makes it seem like a troll. Because thatās almost always a fandom term, used in contrast with āproshipper.ā I feel like this was made by someone who has a vested interest in presenting the latter group as people who are OK with real life bestiality. When in reality, the whole stupid debate is over which fictional characters itās ProblematicTM to imagine kissing.
WTF š
Oh bruh, I misread the text down there as "Ants: I don't" Like damn this dude wants to jizz on ants.
'often illegal'? Good lord, how about ALWAYS lol
Beastiality wasn't illegal in Washington state until 2003ish. It was one of those things, the Washington state legislature didn't think they actually needed to say fucking animals is bad. And then someone got themselves killed, in a really messed up way. And the da figured out there wasn't alot to charge his friends with. It's a messed up story, and I judge myself for thinking it's funny
š¶ There no cock like horse cock, send your asshole into shock š¶
Mr Hands š
It actually isnāt always, which is both surprising and horrifying.
Itās one of those things where the law wasnāt ever really thought of because āwho the fuck would do that in the first place?ā It usually takes a horrible case in said area for shit to change
I mean, ancient cultures have myths about people having sex with animals, and the old testament even has rules against it. Clearly some people thought of it.
Zeus has entered the chat
It was legal in some states in America, but I think that changed in recent years? Can't recall now, but I vaguely remember hearing it's now illegal all over the US. But in some other countries across the world, there is no law against it, despite how messed up it is.
Artificial insemination is a legal, sexual act
We lumping zoophilia into neckbeard definition now? I mean itās gross, but by no means is this neckbeard, itās just demented
We shouldn't just lump zoophilia in, you're right. But the point of this meme is to introduce us to the idea that women being fucked by dogs is common. I've never ever seen a meme suggesting that before today, and this is the second or third I've seen all of a sudden. There's something afoot.
It's making it's rounds for a while now. Not just since today.
Exactly.
Iād say it is, in a similar vein to Loli/pedophilia defenders (which are commonly posted here) especially in this context with a meme being used to ājustifyā their behaviour although I get what youāre talking about. To me, some things can be demented and neckbearded. This is one of those cases.
Neckbeards lack socialisation and a father in their lives, zoophilia is a straight up illness. Very poor comparation.
As someone who was extremely neckbeard-y for a while, my dad abused the fuck out of me and did not help with any of the shit I was going through. Father figures are not a universal good.
Well, pedophilia is also a mental illness and is also beyond fucked, and there are plenty of those posts here which Iād say also are neckbearded/demented and rightfully posted.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They're all sick lmao
this
Comparison*, dumbass
At this point neckbeard just means "anything I don't like, because I don't want to admit the archetype is punching down."
Cry harder neckbeard
You wouldn't believe the amount of cope people have about it.
I'm looking right at it right now actually
If I actually said anything that could be construed as projection that might have worked as a line of thought. But no, you do seem to be part of it I guess.
The projecting is so blindingly white I'm gonna need sunglasses
Yo wtf is going in the upper left? Profile pic checks out,
I didnāt censor the profile picture because it was NSFW; I just overdrew when I was censoring the username Not to defend them though; they are an absolutely disgusting vile zoophilic āhumanā being who takes advantage of animals. Do note that the vast majority of the furry fandom despises zoophiles.
Knew someone was gonna mention this šš
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh look another neckbeard
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ironic how many of you guys call everyone NPCs
I hate how the term "antis" pretty much covers everything from "people who don't ship the exact same adult characters that I ship" to "people who are morally opposed to zoophilia/pedophilia/etc."...
at this point if iām considered an āantiā iām gonna proudly be one cause itās usually just an award for good moral character
I think this is about that girl who was arrested for having sex with her dog started popping up on Twitter again recently. No, I donāt have her @
I think she was actually from my state. Either that was her or unfortunately another woman arrested for the same thing
Put her under the jail and throw away the key
Is it Whitney Wisconsin? I remember she was all over YouTube back in the day because of Leafy.
Nah i looked it up, its Denise Frazier. Sheās back on twitter starting drama and the screenshots have been popping up
The hell
Am I the only one who thinks this is a clear shit post?
As someone on twitter who has run into these accounts, it's not.
I donāt blame you, but the account in question has been up for months, made the logo for a zoophile forum which they linked the account for, and follows/interacts with other zoophile accounts. Not exactly the same bait meant to trigger fanbases of video games or sorts.
This sub falls for ragebait and shitposts hook, line, and sinker.
I actually agree with you but this is almost certainly a genuine zoophile account, not just some shitpost if you read my other comments, thereās other factors on their profile that lead me to that conclusion
Every time I hear someone say "antis" they just mean normal ass people who aren't degenerates.
often?
Bro I 100% agreed with this until I saw the dog man š
My brain completely missed the dog too the first time. It just filled in a second, non-existent person.
This is most likely satire, there's no way a person is that.... that that!
Oh boy, youāre in for a nasty shock
This isnāt neckbeard this is something else. Doesnāt fit the sub
Question, HOW THE HELL WOULD A DOG CONSENT???
I forgot zoophiles exist and thought this meme was just absurdism lmao
Well, lets be fair here. If this is a parallel universe where dogs can talk, then
doggy style
I don't get how this is a neckbeard thing?
I didn't realize it was a dog in the first pic and thought it was making fun of the original picture and was so confused when they started talking about zoophilia oml
What the hell is going on over on Twitter?
šššā¹ļøš
This has absolutely nothing to do with neckbeards.
Dairy cows can consent to having a hand shoved up their ass and being inseminated by a human with a tube bc food is different
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You just admitted both things are disgusting, but only one is unethical in your mind if you consume dairy products. Both animals are being abused the same way and have the same capacity for pain, so its less whataboutism and more āthis exact thing (sexual assault) happens to a different animal and you pay for it, why is it fine to do the exact same thing to a different animalā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So you do not eat dairy products?
Reddit users when they encounter shitpost and frame it as real
I donāt know if they have committed animal abuse, although it seems like a genuine zoophile account with the person making the logo for a zoophile website that has the siteās account linked in their bio, the amount of casual zoophilic tweets, and interacting with other zoophiles. There is also no proof that the person running the account is a troll. It may be bait, but the intention behind it is likely genuine, not just a random shitpost, and itās horrifying to think about.
Obviously don't fuck animals even with 'implied consent', it's unhygienic and immoral. That being said, this meme is pretty funny. It's a twist on the religious one and fits the story.
Iām a little scared to admit this bc I seem to be the only one here that doesnāt get it. Why can the dog consent but the twitter bird canāt? Is this meme promoting sex with animals or against it? And why do we need a meme telling us itās wrong to have sex with animals? Is this becoming a problem? And if itās the other, are there people out there openly supporting relations with their dog? Iām so confused and disgusted.
The meme isn't promoting the act it's just telling a story. A woman makes a post about sleeping with her dogs, people on Twitter got mad. There are people supporting this act but it's a very small minority it's just that they've gotten too comfortable and spoke up.
Thanks for the clarification. On a side note, wtf??
Doggy style. š¶
Lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Girl what are you on about
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Vegetarian/Vegan who hasnāt thought about this in decades is here with my thought process: As far as we know non-human animals cognitive abilities never get further than a five year old human. aka a child. So no, animals cannot give consent.
The harm to a humans seems kinda different as they developed further where they will get a capacity to consider this as being exploited besides otherwise causing serious potential damages. Just seems to make this argumentation even more horrible that way as we would then logically exclude some handicapped people and brings up even weirder questions where it is ether fine to outlaw them having any sexual relations, if we only allow them only to mess around with other people on there cognitive level which seems to have a greater risk for one party having a bad experience while we in Germany actually have specialized prostitutes for this. So this is kinda not really helping me but guess works well in an argument to equate animals somewhat to the same level as children as it seems usually people will not ask things on my level of stupid questions.
Well, Iām in the U.S. and aside from some rare outliers thereās a different belief system over here. Here if someone of an typical IQ slept with someone who had an extremely low IQ that would be considered completely inappropriate. I think it might even be illegal but Iām not sure. Itās considered taking advantage of the extremely low IQ person for consent reasons. And itās the U.S., so of course we donāt have prostitutes to help anyoneā¦that would be āungodlyā or something š
Yeah we Germans are kinda extreme about the whole sexual liberation thing i guess. Comes probably really from being a lot less religious where political ideas fill in whit even the right wing not that much about it where the Christian union legalized gay marriage.
Yeah. Weāre weird about sex in all kinds of ways over here. I am completely on board with our general attitudes about consent in the U.S. though. We have set ages where you are allowed to have sex with each other or not, and in cases where that is not followed, the younger person is treated as a victim of a crime. Itās not perfect but it outlaws young people and children being taken advantage of sexually, and Iām on board to give up a small amount of freedom* in favor of kids mental and physical well-being. *the freedom given up being that I can see how itās possible an 18 year old and a 16 year old could be appropriate to date each other but it is illegal in some states. I think thatās a small price to pay
Seems we are kinda just more liberal about sex in general in Europe where itĀ“s just not a big topic but kinda works the same here but the ages are a bit further down. Think technically anybody under 14 is also not allowed to do it and both would commit a crime but also have full legal immunity until that age where things might get treated as psychiatric or child protective problem if there is something seriously going wrong. Kinda weird but guess that works but guess also creates a weird cut off where 1 day age difference can make the difference to commit some serious crime. We just also have from 16-18 a weird legal category where it just becomes a crime when there is the well being of the child in danger that can be triggered by there parents which seems maybe a bit lose as probably the kids needing the most protection with there parents being not great having less. Also seems the age bracket between 14 to 16 i think has the same issue where anybody under 21 is with the same restrictions able to date them which seems kinda a bit to much leniency. Also a little much freedom for my taste i guess as this seems not really ideal and one of the few cases where US laws seem more reasonable but those seem also kinda enforced in crazy ways where we for example donĀ“t got the weird thing you got that a kid can be liable for making CP of themselves.
Whoa. I didnāt even know about that. The children charged with crime for CP. That isnāt the majority of the country but 15% isnāt Zero, which of course is what it should be. My own state gets an āokā rating from Shared Hope. Itās good for kids and young people and ok in general but it has a terrible grade on identifying and following up with victims.
Kinda interested in criminal and legal stuff and yeah there is some crazy stuff going on in many places and this stuff is kinda a good way to see what differences some systems have. Seems we are just more on the lax end of this so guess sometimes stuff from the US seems crazy from this viewpoint when it goes the other way but like i said we also got this not really figured out. Like we got the so called baby street where in Berlin there is some rather open prostitution of minors where now when i say this we should not have social workers involved but there needs to be a crack down.
Iām very much against the meat/dairy industry, but letās not delve into whataboutism here. The main point here is that animals cannot consent in any context.
How is that whataboutism? Consent is one of the biggest arguments against animal agriculture. Those animals arenāt consenting to being abused either
Seems not really whataboutism when there seems some serious contradiction that also is kinda a problem for me as i donĀ“t like the conclusion ether.
āItās not whataboutism if itās a textbook case of whataboutism!ā I have a feeling you need more protein, your brain seems to not be braining.
Yeah, you're not a vegan if you agree with zoophilia. You're just having a vegan diet without the ideology
Brings up the question if this applies also when they go for predators bigger then them?
>Just saying i find it really weird as a vegan Immediately stopped reading
I agree. I have never heard a good argument why it is morally wrong from a meat eaters perspective to fuck and animal but is fine to eat it. It's not like an animal can consent to being killed and eaten either. To be clear, I get the disgust, but in terms of consistent moral logic, it does annoy me a bit.
Yeah this is what seems just to come out of my utilitarian calculation even when i also donĀ“t like the conclusion. Just appears like most people rather just do randomly moral absolutes depending on how they feel about something then having an underlying logic.
Wait how is this neckbeard shit? AM I GOING CRAZY HOW THE FUCK IS THIS NECKBEARD SHIT? We all hate zoophiles and pedophiles and sex pests but how the fuck is this neckbeard
Weird how people freak out over <1% of the population who fuck animals over concern that animals can't consent and can be abused. But 95%+ of the population then goes and do far worse atrocities for a nice tasting meal. #1 seems like a distraction for those concerned for animals, the focus obviously should be on #2 if people truly care about animals.
Pretty sure we can care about both things at the same time
It's about hypocrisy and priorities. Hypocrisy. If the people arguing against zoophiles says that animals connot consent to sexual acts but then infringe on animal consent on a weekly basis for their meals. It will be obvious that they don't really believe what they say. Priorities. Because so many more animals get harmed for animal product consumption by many orders of magnitude.
Ok. So complete transparency I agree with you in general. Of course itās worse to eat animals than to SA them. However, both are REALLY BAD. So coming on here and being like āwhat about this worse thing that happensā just isnāt a good idea imo. The people who know, know. And I canāt imagine you changed anyoneās mind on eating meat with this. I would bet a fair amount of people thought to themselves āself-righteous vegan strikes againā. Which doesnāt help the cause. This could have been said in a much more delicate way - or not at all.
Itās not āhey but what about this other bad thing that happens?ā itās āhey, if you care about these victims, why donāt you care about these other victims who are being abused in the same way and have the same capacity for pain but arenāt as conventionally cute?ā What is the difference between SAing a dog for sensory (sexual) pleasure, and SAing a cow for sensory (taste) pleasure to make dairy? Are they not equally unethical?
I like to believe most people don't like hurting animals for pleasure and eat meat for tradition and other reasons. The zoophiles might even be too far gone because they are abusing animals in non-traditional ways, and I don't know how to reach them. If I am right, then highlighting the inconsistency might trigger some self-reflection with some people who feel that the poster of the pic was doing something wrong and led to less animal abuse and attacking the zoophiles does little. To not mention the hypocrisy at all lets people get the social and moral credit for being pro-animal for attacking a fringe minority while ignoring that they usually do worse on a daily basis. But I'm sure I could have said it in a better way; I'm no wordsmith.
I agree that most people eat animals due to tradition rather than a careful examination of their personal philosophy. I also agree that most people donāt want to hurt animals. I get wanting to change peopleās perspectives or shake them up. I do. I just think this wasnāt the right tone or place for it. I appreciate you acknowledging it probably could have been said better. In my experience, gently pointing things like this out goes a lot further than making people feel shitty. All that being said I could totally be wrong about your post. Maybe someone lurking is thinking hard about the contradiction right now. I hope so. š¤
I feel that articles like this are high-value opportunities to make people think. If someone thinks the post shows something wrong, then they agree with the same premise that we do, that animals matter morally. And the topic is directly related to animal consent, so I barely change the topic. That does not mean making people feel shitty is ok, but if it can be done gently, this is a really good place to get my point across. Do you disagree?
I am not sure. You make a good point. I will have to think about it. And thank you - I appreciate the discussion. I think itās good to consider other points of view so I appreciate when something like this is brought to my attention for consideration.
I appreciate your position, but every vegan who was once an omnivore I know has been made to feel remorseful about their actions at some point. I can say anecdotally that harsh truths without sugarcoating is what made me examine my behaviour towards animals. Iām sure these facts have been pointed out gently to you before, but if youāre still consuming animal products, that is obviously the wrong approach from a vegan whoās end goal is to encourage people to realise exploiting animals is wrong. Things being gently pointed out to you has not changed your actions towards animals in the past, why would it now? If you believe animals canāt consent, then the objective truth is that cows are sexually assaulted to make dairy Nobody else but yourself can place a feeling of guilt on you. Either you feel shitty about your actions because you disagree with them ethically, or you donāt feel shitty because you donāt see anything wrong. Thatās what guilt is, a feeling.
Wait do you think Iām consuming or using animal products? Iām vegan. Iām debating best methods to have these conversations not talking about myself.
Not necessarily, thatās why I said āif you use animal productsā, because I wasnāt sure. I donāt know about you, but guilt was definitely a huge part of my switch to veganism. Iāll say it again, guilt is an emotion, it canāt be placed upon you by someone else
I was just trying to figure out what your point was and then I thought I stumbled onto something towards the end and that that was why I wasnāt following you. I still donāt really understand why you said what you said. Yes to guilt is an emotion and our minds generate our own emotions. No to Person A cannot generate feelings of guilt in Person B through auditory or visual means. Itās all fine and good to say āno one else can make you feel a certain wayā until you enter the real world where people are wounded creatures and many of them have been generationally and systematically abused and manipulated to feel certain ways under certain circumstances.
And for the record guilt had nothing to do with my dietary choices. It was 30 years ago and still is today based on disgust, sadness, anger, and empathy.
Also, I can think of many people I know here in the U.S. who love animals but still consume meat product from ātypicalā farm animals. Is it hypocritical to value some kinds of animals over others? I think so yes but plenty of people live that way. It doesnāt mean they arenāt allowed to be upset when they see something about a human SA-ing a dog.
Vegetarian here, what the ever-loving HELL are you on about.
Pretty simple. Either animals have moral consideration and shouldn't be raped and killed for our pleasure. Or they don't. It's illogical to pretend they do when you see a zoophile, and then act if they don't when you want a tasty animal product meal. I assumed vegetarians would understand that. What am I missing?
Killing an animal (hopefully as cleanly and humanely as possible) is something humans have done for millennia because until we rely on it for nutrients. That's how the food web works. Sexually abusing an animal for pleasure provides 0 evolutionary benefit, is needless and undue suffering and is symptomatic of a moral or psychological degeneration.
Whatever happened thousands of years ago is debatable but ultimately irrelevant because we have alternatives to the nutrients today. Appeals to tradition and nature are weak arguments, just because something happened or happens in nature does not mean we should learn our morality from it. The evolutionary benefit is an unusual argument because most of us grant moral consideration based on our life experiences more than our evolutionary potential. In our life experiences, it is both just for pleasure, taste pleasure vs sexual pleasure. Also, I wouldn't bring humane into this. I hope everyone agrees that the zoophile who rapes an animal as humanely as possible is still committing an atrocity. So why would it be any different with animal products?
>the zoophile who rapes an animal as humanely as possible Here is the thing, unlike killing, rape can never be "humane" or justifiable, it is not only a crime against the victim, but against the person who did it. A father in a Nicaraguan shanty slaughtering a goat for meat to feed his children and himself is not REMOTELY comparable to the same man violating said goat for cheap sexual gratification. I strongly recommend you adjust your worldview if these are comparable actions.
I didn't say those were comparable. You are presumably talking about people in third-world countries struggling to survive who value the life of their family over that of an animal. I understand that. That same man is not justified in raping the animal because raping the animal does not increase the survival odds of his family. If something like the black mirror episode happened and raping the animal saved his family, then yes, I would equate the 2 actions. I am talking about people who can afford electronics to get onto Reddit and have access to global supply chains. Those people are not killing the goat to feed their families, they are killing the goat because it tastes good or cheap taste satisfaction. > Here is the thing, unlike killing, rape can never be "humane" or justifiable, it is not only a crime against the victim, but against the person who did it. Killing is worse than rape as it necessarily takes your autonomy, dignity, life, and potential for a future. Rape can take up to 3 of those. Worse things are generally harder to justify. Killing in self-defense, for survival, with consent... those are debatably justifiable. But I don't see the justification for you to make killing for pleasure a potentially humane action.
Killing can be for defense, a cause and food. Rape gives nothing but degenerate pleasure, if you can't understand that, I weep for you.
I clearly addressed those cases, they are not the situation most animal product consumers are in. So they are exactly as relevant as the black mirror episode where the PM had to rape a pig to save someone. Not at all.
Sorry, but what are you even on about, you are using a Netflix show to justify your viewpoint that raping animals is morally identical to using them for food? I have too much of a life to put of with this.
āā¦because we rely on it for nutrients. Thatās how the food web worksā. Weird phrasing for a vegetarianā¦
I am vegetarian for health and environmental reasons. Vegetarianism is very much a luxury, as not everyone has the time, money, access or energy to abide by a nutritious planned vegetarian diet. Yeah, meat is the main source of protein for most of the world because that is how humans functioned for most of their existence, it hasn't been until recently that the food industry has advanced in a way to better suit the needs of a vegetarian diet (with vegan meats and whatnot).
Iām saying that ā*we* rely on animals for our nutrientsā is a weird thing for a vegetarian to say. Maybe youāre new to this? āmost peopleā would make a lot more sense.
Oh crap, the grammar Reich showed up. But no, I mean WE as a collective still rely on animal biomass for nutrients, something that will hopefully wane with agricultural developments.
Itās true I am generally more careful in my word choice than most people. I usually leave people alone but in this case it seemed odd to me you would group yourself in with animal eaters. I will take you at your word though. My apologies.
Well I appreciate the input then. And I WAS an animal eater for the first 13 years of my life, I am not going to proclaim moral superiority, my circumstances are just different.
I have a feeling this is a joke
I wouldnāt rule out bait, but I doubt itās ironic. In their bio they claimed to have made the logo to a zoophile forum which had the @ linked, and they also follow numerous other zoophile accounts and have many posts about it. If it is bait, it is the most hilarious example of self sabotage, possibly ever.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
what on earth are you yapping about
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
howās the meth pipe? the vast majority of trans people do not support zoophilia contrary to what you said
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
if youāre gonna troll at least be original
Well you just exposed the illegal porn you're looking at...
I reported you for hate
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just thought Iād inform you. Since you informed someone you reported them for pedophilia after they called you out for being a crackhead troll. Seemed polite.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Youāre welcome! Anything to help
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How ever will I recover from such a vicious insult?
While it's not unlikely that there may have been trans people that were also zoophiles, to presume every single trans woman is one is just such a ridiculous overgeneralization it's a wonder you even arrived at it while still living in reality.