Should using bait in licking videos be banned (please read first)?
- Thread starter underdoge
- Start date
nekdoneco123
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
come to think of it, i actually haven't. not with my own eyes, just the odd "look the dog fucks a toy" gag in movies (like in Click!). all of mine are plushie obliterators so it stopped being a gift of choice for safety reasons when i'm shopping for them. waiting if the eye goes out her backside were not good times when my girl was young.
HugDoggy
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Yes that could be a real problem with easily chompable toys.
I did know a sweet old girl who had collected 54 plush toys over the years and would always carry them around very carefully. She knew the name for each and every one of them; she could bring you any of them if requested, but some days her house looked like it had been raining plushies if she brought them all out of the bed room where her bed was. It was quite ammusing to watch though, I'd be chatting with my friend and she would just get up and return a minute later with a toy lay down have a snooze with the plushie for a while then a few minutes later she would wake up and go get another one until we were surrounded by her great plush family.
Off topic slightly but far too close to how a certain group didn't care about non canines being restrained in videos, all under the excuse that "but breeders do it" so it must be fine.
Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a clear rule anymore. Everything gets misinterpreted. Ever been in court? It’s fucking stupid…
Dogdaddy69
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I don't think it's abuse, per say.
BUT, I do think the issue with putting in on here for all to see, is that people, overall, are just plain fucking stupid. They saw it, so it must be the thing all the cool kids are doing.
Perfect example is the video somewhere on here where the dog is pumping his cock in some chicks mouth. The number of replies about how hot that is and how many stupid fucks want their mouth knotted is EXACTLY why you can't have marginal areas like that. It's asking to have injured dogs and retards with broken jaws. Because people are, essentially, fucking stupid. I saw it on the internet, I should do that.
Tide Pods.
BUT, I do think the issue with putting in on here for all to see, is that people, overall, are just plain fucking stupid. They saw it, so it must be the thing all the cool kids are doing.
Perfect example is the video somewhere on here where the dog is pumping his cock in some chicks mouth. The number of replies about how hot that is and how many stupid fucks want their mouth knotted is EXACTLY why you can't have marginal areas like that. It's asking to have injured dogs and retards with broken jaws. Because people are, essentially, fucking stupid. I saw it on the internet, I should do that.
Tide Pods.
nekdoneco123
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
yet you "showed" nothing.... you literally just made up a scenario to have something not-that-negative-looking to point at. i'd very likely not be the only one questioning this theoretical relationship if the human resorts to bait to get what they want. "i just want to feel him when i masturbate" is exactly on point why it's a bad practice.
of course they do, PB itself is just a treat or maybe a training reward. i've also heard some ppl smear it on a tile to get their dog into the bath. i don't think anyone ever said it's bad... it's using it or any other treat as bait for selfish self-gratification what's unethical and rightfully under the "forcing the animal" label.
and i'd question how seeing a dog licking stuff off genitalia can possibly make anyone feel good. even tho i'm possibly the last one to have an opinion about this (i have zero attraction for humans), but i can't think of anything more unsexy than human penis/vagina smeared in whatever.
this might sound a bit pedantic, but i think "how it represents zoos" should be one of the main things one should consider when creating content. it's still kinda niche genre and new stuff spreads around the internet rather quickly thanks to reposters.
not to mention how many idiots might go for something possibly harmful/lethal for the dog like nuttella because that's what they have at home or simply prefer over peanut butter.
hirsuteman
Tourist
People in power banning harmless things just because said things don't align with their ethical viewpoint is exactly why zoosexuality is not accepted in mainstream society...Yet here the mods sit with a 'holier than thou' attitude unable to even tolerate a simple act that does not harm an animal? How can you expect people who are not zoos to accept zoophilia then? (especially when it can be harmful in certain instances)
While the act itself is not ideal, I don't see the problem because:
1. It does NOT hurt the animal (which is my main concern).
2. It benefits both the animal (physically, in way of a treat and psychologically, in pleasing) and the person (sexual pleasure), which strengthens the bond between animal and human.
Besides, how can you tell if an animal (that licks without bait) is doing so with sexual feelings/impulses or just for a treat such as cum or for other reasons like smell?
While the act itself is not ideal, I don't see the problem because:
1. It does NOT hurt the animal (which is my main concern).
2. It benefits both the animal (physically, in way of a treat and psychologically, in pleasing) and the person (sexual pleasure), which strengthens the bond between animal and human.
Besides, how can you tell if an animal (that licks without bait) is doing so with sexual feelings/impulses or just for a treat such as cum or for other reasons like smell?
Goattobeloved
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
What? Society is monitoring this site to know what uscacceptable?? That is news...
Yes! I am sure society will accept zoo open hearded if we could just serve them more dildogging, fake cum and peanut butter smear..
Um. Holier than you, here? You have not been in many zoo forums in the past, have you? ?
Anyway, the forum is run by the staff members and in the way they see fair. You do not like, you create a new one and move there. If this one goes empty and dies, you were right about management (yes, that also happened before)
HugDoggy
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I think even if something isn't against the rules, stupidity when seen should always be pointed out, politely, but firmly. I've made more than a few comments over the years both here and else where when I've seen such dangerous things. If I put my dogs penis in up to the knot he would be already be pushing hard into the back of my throat so if you add his knot, he's a good 2-3 inches down my throat and breathing may not be possible for the next 15-20 minutes so a broken jaw may be the best possible out come for the human for their stupidity. And I shudder to think what might happen to the dog in such a scenario.
People often learn from example though whether it be baiting or something else that could be dangerous to one or both parties involved.
We can't have rules for every possible thing, but a good basic framework even if a bit ambiguous so it can include a greater amount of dubious stuff is still better than a squillion of highly detailed rules that a user will never read. Don't get me wrong, clarity is always better to avoid arguments over if something is or is not against a rule. But at some point you need to assume people have at least a grain of brain power in their head.
Dogdaddy69
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I don't disagree.
I more or less was saying I DO believe the amount out there should, if possible, have some type of limiting force. if for no other reason than maybe someone needs to look out for the poor animals owned by said retards.
And rules sometimes, if written to cover some grey areas, NEED to be a little bit ambiguous because people are dicks and if you make all the rules rigid, people will just game the fucking system to death requiring more and more rigid rules to cover every possible situation, which is ridiculous, but still the way it would be. Which, I'm thinking is sort of what you were getting at as well.
I mean, I'd LIKE to have some faith in people using their brains in ways other than surfing for porn, but the average member here STILL thinks a dog knot goes in fully inflated. What can you expect from that?
Sigh. I'm going to keep this as simple as humanly possible so there is no debate.
We don't fucking care what people think, what we KNOW is that it is abusive. No amount of wishing OR ridiculous incorrect "arguments" will convince us otherwise.
There have been debates where people have changed our minds, this one WILL NOT be one of them.
We don't fucking care what people think, what we KNOW is that it is abusive. No amount of wishing OR ridiculous incorrect "arguments" will convince us otherwise.
There have been debates where people have changed our minds, this one WILL NOT be one of them.
107 votes is not half the site.
Dogdaddy69
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
lol
Wait.......is that by genuine person or by site membership including all the fakes?
Well shit.....lol
Wait.......is that by genuine person or by site membership including all the fakes?
Just a bit over 150,000 members.....
Take that number divide by the hypotenuse of 37 squared and other math shit I just made up.... And well..... That still should be at least 5000 real people, so yeah, still not even close.
Dogdaddy69
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Heavy, heavy, heavy sarcasm man. Heavy sarcasm. I can't even read 107 in that context without laughing my ass off.
hirsuteman
Tourist
First of all, don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about society monitoring this site nor did I even mention dildogging, and fake cum...If you have to resort to this nonsense to argue, you should learn what logical fallacies are instead of wasting my time. I will still try to clear up your misunderstanding though.
The point of my post was not to attack the mods. At the end of the day, I don't control them and they can do what they want. The point of the post was for reflection about a particular mindset. The mindset that makes people think they have the right to decide what is permissible or not, even if it is not harmful, and impose it on everyone else without even consulting others, just because they can. It is the same mindset and associated behaviors that have held society back with regards to homosexuality in the past, and it is the same mindset/behavior that criminalizes zoosexuality today. Aren't the mods somewhat displaying the same mindset by just banning a harmless thing...? It was a question for self reflection.
Also, I have been to other zoo forums in the past...I fail to see the relevance here though. And I am not planning on starting another forum or anything because I have neither time nor energy.
Goattobeloved
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Thanks for taking the time to clear it up, but it is possibly better if you start setting your point in a less confusing way.
People in power banning harmless things just because said things don't align with their ethical viewpoint is exactly why zoosexuality is not accepted in mainstream society...
I see no other way to read that except "zoosexuality is not accepted by mainstream society because people in power ban harmless things"
As I read it now, it might be you were talking about society leaders banning things, but since the rest of the post refered to mods, the logic is "People in power" was limited to this site, hence, looking as a silly reason to affect society as a whole.
The mods, criticism is good, but in the end, a forum is like a pub. If you do not like the barman, or feel he is too patronizing, you possibly end in the bar across the street.
hirsuteman
Tourist
Yeah I was indeed talking about society leaders banning a harmless thing they don't like and drawing a parallel with how the mods are potentially doing the same. I kind of get how you were confused now. And tones are also completely missed on the internet, which makes any criticism and question sound like attacks, making debating much more difficult.
The difference is we DO know what is harmful. It is harmful for the dog and it is EXTREMELY harmful to the entire world of zoo. It paints us in such a bad picture that we became the butt of a joke. How many fucking memes have you seen with a guy, a jar of PB and a dog?
The entire world sees it as forcing a dog to lick genitals. How the fuck is that not abuse?
hirsuteman
Tourist
Do you really believe that people who are not zoos would find someone using peanut butter to get licked by an animal as "more abusive" than penetrative sex with an animal (both giving and receiving)? You need to get a bit more real. Also who cares about memes? For all you know, the memes may be bringing humor, some degree of relatability or even inspiration to non zoos. What is really plaguing zoosexuality is the fake image that ALL zoo sex involve people forcefully having sex with animals that are struggling to break free, not peanut butter.
Just for the record, I am not defending the use of peanut butter or food for oral. I, for one, prefer the act when it is completely natural, initiated by pheromones, sweat etc... with tongue directly on skin, but I just don't see the use of food as worthy of being attacked either.
Also we have very different definitions for the word 'abuse'. It might just be because I do not live in the western first world though...
You need to stop arguing that it is not abuse. It IS FUCKING ABUSE. Not a single word will convince me or anyone else with a shred of common sense. The dog has 4 primary functions. Eat, breath, sleep and fuck. Everything else is secondary including feeling pleasure while eating, sleeping, fucking or doing whatever the hell the doggo wants to do. Dogs either want to lick out of their own pleasure or they don't. Forcing them to lick by using one of their basic needs is just that - FORCING for YOUR OWN PLEASURE.
We have ethics. We have morals. Using food for sexual pleasure goes against all of that.
When in the holy fuck have you seen a dog turn down something delicious? That in itself removes their choice in its entirety, so feel free to fuck off with that excuse as well. As if they had a damn choice.
temporaryacc
Citizen of Zooville
hmm. Those votes are disappointing but not surprising
The zoophile reservoir has been depleted.
Zooville seems to have about 54 zoophiles. 0.035%
temporaryacc
Citizen of Zooville
HugDoggy
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Porn hounds? A dog that can sniff out porn from 100m away.
Hey Pes you should get some of these canine porn sniffer dogs to find all the bad stuff for you to delete. They could sit at the upload area and alert you to anything undesirable as it's being uploaded. 
Shalmaneser
Tourist
The cops and courts would make very little distinction between the use of peanut butter and say, a guy who fucks his female dog's vagina. The notion that the female dog wanted to get fucked any more than the other dog wanted to eat the PB seems quite contrived to me. But this is not my forum, and I will certainly respect the rules.
Goattobeloved
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
l3w5
Tourist
This is a typical ratio on any of the forums that I can remember.The zoophile reservoir has been depleted.
adjusted for local conditions.
Regardless of the size of the forum, language, etc... lol
There is one more problem. By prohibiting the publication of such content in one place, you get a neighboring one. The outflow of the audience and the degradation of the site. Sad but true.
The request of the seekers will be satisfied one way or another.
Perhaps the problem should be solved in a different way. Including the personal example of respected people in the community. But irl doesn't work either, I would say...
Last edited: