• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Should using bait in licking videos be banned (please read first)?

Should using bait in licking videos be banned (please read first)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 134 35.8%

  • No

    Votes: 190 50.8%

  • No opinion

    Votes: 47 12.6%

  • Other?

    Votes: 3 0.8%
  • Total voters
    374
Absolutely yes.
This is a routine positive reinforcement training.
The reproductive behavior of animals in the vast majority of cases is completely ignored. Nice to see similar trends on this forum.

Regarding the arguments given in this thread above...
The use of bait (food motivation) is indeed not the only method for training an animal in the actions that are performed in the frame. And it is really impossible to track by whom and with the help of what the actions in the frame are staged. Just a food reinforcement (bait) is easy to track on video.
However, in my opinion, the initiative is absolutely correct. At the very least, those viewing content devoid of subject matter will at least be misled in the right direction. Even if they are really wrong, and the frame is staged.
At the very least, it's easy to track down, and you shouldn't advertise this approach.
Regarding some forcing animals in training in general. It is undoubtedly used, one way or another.
No matter how positive the method was used.
And I do not quite share the opinion that animals certainly suffer in this case.
However, I believe that in the field of reproductive behavior, and sexual relations, no training is appropriate. It seems to me that for the sake of satisfying the fetishes of a certain group of people, it is not appropriate to regulate this behavioral aspect.
Again, this is in accordance with the principles of the community, as I imagine them.
The voting, in my opinion, is certainly biased, however sad it may be.
Translator used. I'm sorry if you felt uncomfortable reading this...
 
Last edited:
underdoge said:
I agree with you. Another concern I have is that baiting isn't what I would want to show new people to demonstrate what zoo is about. These things are at conflict with my desire for non-interference; if something is going to be banned, I want there to be a very clear objective harm and I want the reasons to make sense when thought of critically (like when comparing them against antis way of thinking and other things we approve of).

Zoos are ostracized mostly because people feel that zoo is bad. I think it is our duty to not make the same mistake. I setup standards for myself to meet before I exclude someone. It can't be based on simply thinking their interest is distasteful (or revolting) because that might just mean I wasn't born with the condition of having that attraction or desire, and that is what people do to us.

I have been responding to arguments that seem to be full of holes, but my real opinion is that I'm on the fence about it. My main goal here is for community-supported action and clarity, whatever that may be.
Click to expand...
I certainly share your concern about performative policing of zoophiles by zoophiles that has the desired result of appeasing antizoos. Much like the somewhat common behavior in the gay community (No kink at pride, Gay Republicans etc) it never will accomplish what it hopes to. When a marginalized group edits its behavior in a bid to gain favor with the group that marginalizes them, theyre typically used for an agenda then shunned all the same.

That said, I fully support zoophiles being vocal with eachother about their standards, their morals, and how they put them in practice with their own animals. Likewise, I support speaking out about behavior that goes against these principals within the community. Since most of us arent posting these thoughts on twitter however, it's (thankfully) easy to observe the genuine love and desire to educate here for what it is.
 
underdoge said:
I agree with you. Another concern I have is that baiting isn't what I would want to show new people to demonstrate what zoo is about. These things are at conflict with my desire for non-interference; if something is going to be banned, I want there to be a very clear objective harm and I want the reasons to make sense when thought of critically (like when comparing them against antis way of thinking and other things we approve of).
Click to expand...

Agreed and it's one of the reasons I persist here; because, like it or not, this place is where the new people will end up. I believe that the more rational discussions we have on these topics, the better guidance we all receive. It's easy to get caught up in discussions with an indiividual on any particular topic and forget about the many silent readers and the effect one's words has upon them, even if that wasn't intentional.

underdoge said:
Zoos are ostracized mostly because people feel that zoo is bad. I think it is our duty to not make the same mistake. I setup standards for myself to meet before I exclude someone. It can't be based on simply thinking their interest is distasteful (or revolting) because that might just mean I wasn't born with the condition of having that attraction or desire, and that is what people do to us.
Click to expand...
I do much the same and I'll freely admit that I sometimes fail to meet my own expectations. I don't feel that failure to meet expectations is a requirement, but that sincere attempts to do better than one might sometimes and to strive for a goal of self-improvement are the real measure. We have all had different lives which have given us different starting points and perspectives, I allow that someone may not agree with me or I might not see their point, but so long as we're open to honest, rational discussion we can reach a point where we can exchange a previously held idea for one that is better. Without that discussion, we're all left fumbling in the dark figuring things out for ourselves, which is a much harder path.

underdoge said:
I have been responding to arguments that seem to be full of holes, but my real opinion is that I'm on the fence about it. My main goal here is for community-supported action and clarity, whatever that may be.
Click to expand...
There are no ideas I hold sacrosanct, I'm not perfect and I make errors in thinking as do we all. If another believes me to be in error, I want them to point it out to me, to make the error clear. If we don't, neither of us is likely to have the opportunity of exchanging the error for something better. I consider it a kindness when someone does me the favor of dispelling an error and it is a kindness I extend to others for the same reason.
 
shortbutfast said:
the dog being a dog and thinking mm peanut butter is the problem. it removes the element of consent. dogs can think 'oo horny lick sex smell juice', they can have no interest in a sex smell spot on their owner at all as well. thats the consent.
if theyre thinking 'sweet its peanutbutter' we're manipulating their behavior for sexual gratification. youre right in that this is not going to physically effect a dog, but ethics arent determined purely by outcome unless youre machiavelli
Click to expand...
First off, I dont get turned on by coaxing animals to do something with food. But is it bannable? No, it shouldnt be. We train dogs in many ways using food or pavlovian tricks that mimic the reward response food gives (clicker, voice). Sit, lie down, roll over. None if these are a problem. And suddenly licking would be an issue because we somehow take away sexual consent? Piss off. There is nothing sexual about it for the dog. Its just another trick it does for a reward. Exactly why I dont like it, but also exactly why it shouldnt be banned. Also, I see movies of male and female animals being fucked in the ass which are infinitely more worrying and potentially harmful, yet somehow are found ok on here. What gives?
 
This is probably a stupid comparison I dont know

if bait is allowed because the animal doesn’t know it’s in a sexual context so it’s no harm at all. Couldn’t that be used to allow younger animal content (non penetrative) to be allowed too?

Should we allow puppies to be licking women and so on because “it’s technically not harmful.”

I’m pretty sure some dude got banned for messing with a calf or something. Should that be fine then?

They don’t know what’s happening, does that make it fine to do it anyways? Animals do show some form of informed consent, they know what sex is, they request it, and they deny it. They have an idea of what their doing.

I feel like this is just opening it up for more young animal content… which if you want that shit just go to the banned websites. Go find it elsewhere.

This place helped me realize that zoophilia wasn’t just forcing an animal to perform by diffrent methods. I don’t want more people to come into this and see just more trickery and have to assume every zoo is like that.

Tldr: should we be unbanning young animals too? (The answer is no)
 
temporaryacc said:
This is probably a stupid comparison I dont know

if bait is allowed because the animal doesn’t know it’s in a sexual context so it’s no harm at all. Couldn’t that be used to allow younger animal content (non penetrative) to be allowed too?

Should we allow puppies to be licking women and so on because “it’s technically not harmful.”

I’m pretty sure some dude got banned for messing with a calf or something. Should that be fine then?

They don’t know what’s happening, does that make it fine to do it anyways? Animals do show some form of informed consent, they know what sex is, they request it, and they deny it. They have an idea of what their doing.

I feel like this is just opening it up for more young animal content… which if you want that shit just go to the banned websites. Go find it elsewhere.

This place helped me realize that zoophilia wasn’t just forcing an animal to perform by diffrent methods. I don’t want more people to come into this and see just more trickery and have to assume every zoo is like that.

Tldr: should we be unbanning young animals too? (The answer is no)
Click to expand...
No, because it implies the human is a sick fuck for getting off on young animals. Also young animals often dont have the confidence to refuse and may want to try and please just because they feel they have to. Thats no go. I get why you pose this question but I dont think this is a valid comparison.
 
waarom170 said:
No, because it implies the human is a sick fuck for getting off on young animals. Also young animals often dont have the confidence to refuse and may want to try and please just because they feel they have to. Thats no go. I get why you pose this question but I dont think this is a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

You could imply the human is also a sick fuck for getting off on tricking animals. They are living beings not sex toys.

Most adult animals will do anything for food though. (Hence why it’s great in training.) and training animals for sex is wrong.

I don’t get the outrage for this content anyways. There are plenty of dogs that will happily lick sans peanut butter.

If you have to trick your animal with food… maybe you should reevaluate if you’re trying to ignore a no.

It’s coercion… not necessarily rape. But still icky.
 
waarom170 said:
First off, I dont get turned on by coaxing animals to do something with food. But is it bannable? No, it shouldnt be. We train dogs in many ways using food or pavlovian tricks that mimic the reward response food gives (clicker, voice). Sit, lie down, roll over. None if these are a problem. And suddenly licking would be an issue because we somehow take away sexual consent? Piss off. There is nothing sexual about it for the dog. Its just another trick it does for a reward. Exactly why I dont like it, but also exactly why it shouldnt be banned. Also, I see movies of male and female animals being fucked in the ass which are infinitely more worrying and potentially harmful, yet somehow are found ok on here. What gives?
Click to expand...
i personally agree about the male human m/f animal anal content youre referring to, however as I'm a bottom gay dude with 0 interest in penetrating any animals myself i dont think im informed enough to give a relevant take on the subject. that said, this tread isn't calling for banning people who post videos of dogs being baited to lick peoples dicks a vag's, its a poll asking if it should be a rule to not allow its posting. Reading the room, or the thread in this case, gives me the impression that most of us dont think it to be directly equivalent to directly violent abuse like chicken fucking or something. But we don't like it, and we don't like what it implies about the people in the videos and their overall attitudes about animals.

if the mods did decide to explicitly define this as a rule, which is completely independent of this poll made by a user, it would also be up to them what the punishment would be
 
temporaryacc said:
This is probably a stupid comparison I dont know

if bait is allowed because the animal doesn’t know it’s in a sexual context so it’s no harm at all. Couldn’t that be used to allow younger animal content (non penetrative) to be allowed too?

Should we allow puppies to be licking women and so on because “it’s technically not harmful.”

I’m pretty sure some dude got banned for messing with a calf or something. Should that be fine then?

They don’t know what’s happening, does that make it fine to do it anyways? Animals do show some form of informed consent, they know what sex is, they request it, and they deny it. They have an idea of what their doing.

I feel like this is just opening it up for more young animal content… which if you want that shit just go to the banned websites. Go find it elsewhere.

This place helped me realize that zoophilia wasn’t just forcing an animal to perform by diffrent methods. I don’t want more people to come into this and see just more trickery and have to assume every zoo is like that.

Tldr: should we be unbanning young animals too? (The answer is no)
Click to expand...

Valid comparison. I'm not in favor of baiting, I just don't see baiting itself as inherently abusive. In the case of a pup licking someone's genitals, as much as I find the idea repugnant, I have to accept that logically, it's no different. Harm isn't the sole decider of my personal morals, thankfully.

It's been mentioned earlier that there are some things which, while not directly harmful, are not things we want accepted in the community and I tend to think baiting could easily fall in that category and sexualizing an immature being, even indirectly, seems well beyond the limit of what I'd accept. Not saying it's logical, but those are my feelings. Gotta love the weird minefield that is human morals.
 
I've voted yes because while I don't think it is abuse as such, I also don't think it's something that should be encouraged; due to the grey area that it can create with consent of the animal in a sexual situation. I also think it shows a bad example to anyone starting out in any sort of animal relationship. Is licking food off any part of you, seen as sexual to an animal? I seriously doubt it no matter what body part is being licked.

Have I ever used baiting, I don't really know I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. My dog has a big dollop of Natural and unflavoured Yogurt on is food each night, when the container is empty I offer it to him and his muzzle disappears in the rectangular container up to his eyes as he licks it spotless. Trouble is I then have to wash his face. So an alternate way is to wipe my finger around inside the tub and let him lick it off my finger. That gets the container pretty clean before I let him shove his nose in to polish the inside to the spotless state it must be left in under the rules decreed by my GSD. He really loves his yogurt. Now on the odd occasion when I've been feeling horny I have used my penis instead of my finger to wipe out the inside of the container and he has licked the Yogurt off my penis. I would say it felt nice, but it wasn't a super sexual thing for me and most certainly wasn't a sexual thing for my dog, he just wanted his yogurt and couldn't care less what part of me he was licking it off.

Now the real question is if I then masturbate later in the day and he comes over as he always does and wants to clean up what ever tasty treat comes out of my dick, is he doing it because he finds it sexually stimulating being sexual fluids this time or because he just loves the taste of my precum and cum. I should mention him being into my juices came long long before I ever let him lick yogurt off my penis, so he had never been train in anyway to associate food with my genitalia. But I still think he always wanted to clean me up more because he like the smell and taste than it being a sexual thing for him.

However all of the above is mute as was stated in the 3rd or 4th post the Mods have said it's something that won't be allowed and will be deleted (which I agree with), so it's pretty much case closed.
 
HugDoggy said:
. I would say it felt nice, but it wasn't a super sexual thing for me and most certainly wasn't a sexual thing for my dog
Click to expand...
Mostly agree. And case in point here, if you recorded that... Why would it be sexual to someone watching it?
How does it makevsense to have that in a porn section.
 
Goattobeloved said:
Mostly agree. And case in point here, if you recorded that... Why would it be sexual to someone watching it?
How does it makevsense to have that in a porn section.
Click to expand...
Well there are the internet rules:
Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions
and
Rule 41: Everything is someone's sexual fetish.

But, the point is it's the whole coercion or training side of things that creates the problem, as in a video you don't really know if the animal is doing it because they want to or if they are just following orders as it were. Although if a dog say stopped licking as soon as the food was gone and didn't start licking again until more food was applied, that would be a good indication of the dogs real motives for the action.
 
HugDoggy said:
Well there are the internet rules:
Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions
and
Rule 41: Everything is someone's sexual fetish.

But, the point is it's the whole coercion or training side of things that creates the problem, as in a video you don't really know if the animal is doing it because they want to or if they are just following orders as it were. Although if a dog say stopped licking as soon as the food was gone and didn't start licking again until more food was applied, that would be a good indication of the dogs real motives for the action.
Click to expand...
Rule 34 indeed ?

And yes, about the training thing, there is a fine line. EVERYTHING you do with a dog is a conditioning training. A light pet in the head, moving away, a soft/hard word, a look.... And the other way round, how he acts, moves, looks "trains" us.

That he ONLY comes for the food is not really bad, except on our moral ground and IF that is not trying to overcome a real NO from the dog to do that action.

Also, related, I would put a line between someone who is curious and tries it, and the *intention* of having the dog trained by that action.

In any case, no interest in seeing it done.

underdoge said:
Some more food for thought. What about if PB is put into context with the rest of the relationship a person might have with a dog? Imagine a woman who loves her dog more than anything in the world, takes him every weekend to the dog park, spends her last dime at the vet to get her dog the best food and care. She has practiced over months to accommodate her huge dog and please him in one extra way. They have a very fulfilling respect-based sexual relationship. Paying very close attention to his wants and needs, she will only have sex with him when he initiates, do what's natural, and focus on what he responds the most to try to give him the most pleasure. After giving everything to the dog in every way, she has one personal desire and that is that she can only finish by being given head by the dog. She can also stimulate herself instead but she wants to be thinking of him and feeling him when she has her orgasm or it isn't the same. She uses PB to achieve that.
Click to expand...
You mean like a work dog hearding beavers instead of cattle?

Live of ease and luxury in exchange for an occasional action you may not be specially fond of.
Well, I might well accept it for myself, you may accept it for yourself, but I doubt we should accept it for another person (dog) in his behalf.
underdoge said:
Then to help out her community she records what she does in the bedroom for others.

What do you think of this scenario?
Click to expand...
THAT is the relevant part. :)
*How* is this helping the community?

Specially when people see it and get the idea of PB on really uninterested dogs or when antizoo people can use the video as "proof" of animals being forced?
 
underdoge said:
Some more food for thought. What about if PB is put into context with the rest of the relationship a person might have with a dog? Imagine a woman who loves her dog more than anything in the world, takes him every weekend to the dog park, spends her last dime at the vet to get her dog the best food and care. She has practiced over months to accommodate her huge dog and please him in one extra way. They have a very fulfilling respect-based sexual relationship. Paying very close attention to his wants and needs, she will only have sex with him when he initiates, do what's natural, and focus on what he responds the most to try to give him the most pleasure. After giving everything to the dog in every way, she has one personal desire and that is that she can only finish by being given head by the dog. She can also stimulate herself instead but she wants to be thinking of him and feeling him when she has her orgasm or it isn't the same. She uses PB to achieve that. Then to help out her community she records what she does in the bedroom for others.

What do you think of this scenario?
Click to expand...
made up scenario to have a semblance of a point aside (whatifisms are never "good" arguments), how does recording that "helps" the community in any way? another possible "proof" we're just abusing their basic instincts to get off for any possible anti to stumble upon?


nice to see the poll still more on the ethical side of things.
 
nekdoneco123 said:
made up scenario to have a semblance of a point aside (whatifisms are never "good" arguments), how does recording that "helps" the community in any way? another possible "proof" we're just abusing their basic instincts to get off for any possible anti to stumble upon?


nice to see the poll still more on the ethical side of things.
Click to expand...
I woder how long the poll has to stay open to deplete the minority of zoos on the forum so fetishists can take over. :D
 
nekdoneco123 said:
i kinda doubt an average fetishist cares about this thread/poll at all... there's no "what dog has the biggest dick" in the title.
Click to expand...
I suspect the idea here is to wait as long as necessary for the poll to reverse and then claim that the correct opinion is to allow baiting even if it takes 2 years.
 
pes said:
I suspect the idea here is to wait as long as necessary for the poll to reverse and then claim that the correct opinion is to allow baiting even if it takes 2 years.
Click to expand...
and then claim the staff actually agreed to make/update a rule based on a poll?
 
pes said:
At present it does not look like the staff is going to

Hopefully it stays this way.
Click to expand...
guess i missed a mod clearly stating this isn't something to be changed, which is good. makes theorizing what the poll may be looking like in two years kinda pointless, no?
 
pes said:
I suspect the idea here is to wait as long as necessary for the poll to reverse and then claim that the correct opinion is to allow baiting even if it takes 2 years.
Click to expand...
They have it easier.

Get any long sit peanutbutter video in the porn section, count the "likes" against the "dislikes" and there you have the voting.

So, everyone loves those videos, it is just the staff and that @pes guy being mean by always deletting them
??
 
nekdoneco123 said:
guess i missed a mod clearly stating this isn't something to be changed, which is good. makes theorizing what the poll may be looking like in two years kinda pointless, no?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Still I want to have the oposite rule added. Removal of baiting explicitly allowed. No bans, optional warning, but removal allowed and clearly stated so no debates are around it.
 
Goattobeloved said:
They have it easier.

Get any long sit peanutbutter video in the porn section, count the "likes" against the "dislikes" and there you have the voting.

So, everyone loves those videos, it is just the staff and that @pes guy being mean by always deletting them
??
Click to expand...
yeah, that @pes character is just some mean envious dude who probably fucks a plushie down in his mother's basement. all those horses with tied legs in vids he deleted were just really into bondage. the likes confirm that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top