@mario @prouddegenerate How come it's so hard to find danger dobermans art? That's the only furry artist I know my name and keep an eye out for because I like feral.
@mario @prouddegenerate No! Funny though they used to be! They got blacklisted! Some drama, rumors, basically the rumor is he pulled a gun like a vigilante irl on a drunk driver and got in legal trouble, doxxed, all sorts of stuff, outed as a zoo, but I always liked him even if he was kind of a spaz. He had this weird christian phase after getting out of jail and swore he would never draw feral porn again. Years later he's back to normal again. Also he loves guns. Has tons on his wall he's posted before. I think he has a Patreon unless they've kicked him off too. He used to go by Wildwulf.
ooof
@mario @prouddegenerate I don't think he was ever a zoosadist, just a dogfucker, so the word "abuse" here means had sex with
@mario @prouddegenerate And i think he was mostly the bottom anyway but I'm not sure if that's a false memory, I think I remember him saying that or something once defending himself
@mario @prouddegenerate Fair enough but I disagree, I'm sure you've heard all the reasons why. Zoos love saying things like "if a such and such pound animal with claws and teeth wants you to stop doing something, it'll let you know!!!" and I think they're right. An animal can communicate through action that it wants you to stop doing something, or that something is hurting it, what it cannot do is communicate that it was raped if it didn't consent. But it can consent. But in a case where it doesn't, it will be a silent victim. And so that's bad. But the solution is easy, just don't do things to animals they are fighting against. But then you fall into the problem of, getting the dog to take a bath, getting the dog to the vet, giving it it's shots, all are things that are done against the dogs will but are accepted as normal, so it's not really the animals consent that matters after all. It's the icky factor, the fact that a human would "lower" themselves sexually to an animal. And that's purely cultural, it has nothing to do with morals, only cultural values.
There is no advantage taking in (non-sexual) washing or (medical) care, while there is in sex.
If you see some person struggling to breath, you don't ask them if they are okay with recieving first aid, there is with sex tho. I'd never want to gain lust at the involuntary/uninformed cost of another living being.
As far as I am concerned I won't fuck/get fucked by anything where consent is questionable and I'll never be able to tell if an animal gives consent, because just >looking like it< won't cut it for me.
@mario @prouddegenerate Ok fair, and your analogies make sense, but I don't see rubbing female scent hormones on ones self and bending over and allowing (not even verbally coaxing or moving, motionless silence, throughout) a male to mount and penetrate as abusive. Now I don't know what this guy did, and it could have been some fucked up shit for all I know. I'm just defending the idea of animal human sex having the potential to be non abusive. If animals can't consent, sex can still at least be non abusive, but only when it is in service of the animal. I would love to have a big husky wuskie I could jack off any time he needed with a doggie fleshlight, since my booty probably couldn't take him, and I wouldn't think that was abusive at all, and would feel embarrassed that I have to keep such dog petting techniques to myself.
@mario @prouddegenerate I get it, your reasoning is not unsound, but it raises the question, what about humans who have lost the ability to speak or write? They are fully aware of what is going on and even understand words, should it be illegal for this person to have any sexual activity with anyone not like them? Not allowed to love someone able to speak and write, since they would be incapable of expressing consent? But there's the rub (part 2 boogaloo), I don't think they're incapable of expressing consent, because I don't believe consent is in speech, consent is in action, it is momentary and it is fluid and it changes. Communication is in more than speech it is in a caress as well.
I wouldn't fuck/get fucked by anyone who can't express explicit consent.
only retards need consent for sex anyway
@mario @prouddegenerate I'm not either but I've been told I'd be good at it, but I'm lazy and don't want to go to boring school.
Anyway, I hear you, and I agree. Context is everything though.
>A woman sobbing
>Gang member with gun on her asks if she likes it
>She chokes out yes while sobbing harder, crying for god
In this situation she said yes, verbal consent was given, yet this situation is non consensual. Clear as day.
Second, contrary example
>Deaf mute woman is with her boyfriend, neither understand sign language and she can't write
>They are cuddling watching a movie
>She paws his crotch, he looks at her, surprise and glee on his face
>She taps his crotch knowingly, then taps her open mouth, then makes a quizzical expression as if asking
>He nods happily and she helps him unzip
>Blowjob ensues
No verbal consent was given, yet this was not rape
I'm not saying my opinion is the ultimate truth, but it's my reasoning for my action:
Any sexual interaction with any non-human is unconsentual sex (since they can't state their consent in form of a verbal contract) and therefore rape and by definition abusive.
I won't say there couldn't ever be a situation where the sex isn't enjoyable for the not-consenting party, but that's not a thing anyone can know, especially not beforehand.