• 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
FloofyNewfie said:
Looking at the edit options, I don't seem to have the ability to change the poll type to public. But I do know that to change the poll type from public to anonymous, I have to first wipe the current poll results and then change it. More than likely the same thing applies here, but the opposite. I'd have to wipe the current tally and then switch it to public.
Click to expand...
Thank you oh Floofy one, you rock.
 
underdoge said:
I'm pretty tired of people creating something else out of my posts and responding to that instead. It seems I can spend all day saying "I didn't say that, I actually said..." So I'll take a break from this thread for a bit. Maybe until the weekend.
Click to expand...
I was a member of BF for a very long time and quite active as well, don't remember you at all. Only reason I remember you here is due to your unhinged rant in what was a private invite only chat for known and vetted Zoos. Unlike you I have a very good memory and know for a fact you are wrong about so many things like Oldman having been a moderator on BF, he wasn't end of discussion.
 
Over time this poll will likely show a pretty accurate percentage of zoos on the forum.
But I wonder what happens a few months from now when the No option inevitably takes over and there will be a new attempt to say that now it is the perfect time to attempt to change the rules again.
 
pes said:
Over time this poll will likely show a pretty accurate percentage of zoos on the forum.
But I wonder what happens a few months from now when the No option inevitably takes over and there will be a new attempt to say that now it is the perfect time to attempt to change the rules again.
Click to expand...
It really is disappointing
 
Dogdaddy69 said:
I think you are being VERY generous about a very LARGE chunk of human relationships. Whether willfully or unintentionally, I can't say.

*MOST* human relationships are or become toxic in some form or another. Quite a few of them in the exact ways I bolded in your statement.

I don't disagree with you, per say, but I do believe the human/human aspect is not nearly as noble as it's cracked up to be.
Click to expand...
I know I am generous there, and I know there's a huge potential for human-human relations to get toxic along the way. I nevertheless put it in there because I wonder how many (non-zoo) people will realise that this is the case. They will see zoo relations as something twisted and defined by e.g. the luring with food, and porn hounds confirm this stereotype. It leads to this question "what is a relationship worth?" and I hoped that people reading here would see this mirrored in human-human relationships.
 
underdoge said:
It's a sign of something. It could be that people don't want to deal with the hate that everyone gives people who disagree with the way things are. Zoos are the most vulnerable depressed group of people I've come across. I think being disliked by their community would mentally affect most of them.
Click to expand...
Depressed and venerable but also very angry and gatekeeping (which is alright when it comes to consent)
 
underdoge said:
It's a sign of something. It could be that people don't want to deal with the hate that everyone gives people who disagree with the way things are. Zoos are the most vulnerable depressed group of people I've come across. I think being disliked by their community would mentally affect most of them.
Click to expand...
Half the members on this site are GENUINE mental trainwrecks, so........

Personally, I think if you do things one way in private and differently in public.....BOTH anonymously, then there are some issues there, and they don't have to do with not wanting to catch flack ONLY......
 
RexAndMe said:
Turn on the option where your vote is publicly visible and you'll see that the majority of people who voted ''no'' are Lurkers or tourists. While the majority who voted ''yes'' are long time members here who know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...
Don't forget lock the polls also
 
While the Sex category of the forum is full of videos with no emotion, just hard bestiality and fucking, many videos are copied from "FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE!" and similar shitsites. Meanwhile, they are debating whether licking peanut butter is sexual coercion...
I love that a small group of the forum is already outraged if the dog's tail is held during sex, while most of the videos on the forum are bestiality, satisfaction of physical needs and have nothing to do with zoophilia or love. And under these videos there are tons of "nice fuck" comments and likes.
Yaay. Mkay.
 
Twelvepaws said:
While the Sex category of the forum is full of videos with no emotion, just hard bestiality and fucking, many videos are copied from "FORBIDDEN_WEBSITE!" and similar shitsites. Meanwhile, they are debating whether licking peanut butter is sexual coercion...
I love that a small group of the forum is already outraged if the dog's tail is held during sex, while most of the videos on the forum are bestiality, satisfaction of physical needs and have nothing to do with zoophilia or love. And under these videos there are tons of "nice fuck" comments and likes.
Yaay. Mkay.
Click to expand...
Personal opinion here: tail yanking or other actions that impede the animal's comfortability is something that should be reviewed and removed promptly.
 
Using the word "bait" probably skewed the results a bit to the Yes side, buuut still not enough for the No to be ahead.

Even if you think the animal isn't harmed in any way, the community is still harmed... perhaps a realistic representation, but should not be what is promoted by allowing it on the site.
 
hirsuteman said:
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...
Click to expand...
It may not look abusive to a lot of people but, in my opinion, its basically like luring someone with a reward if they take the bait. That reward being a tasty treat just to please the person that put peanut butter on their genitals. There is a lack of consent and videos like this shows that the dog is more interested in the pb than the actual areas it was placed. Its different when the dog licks your cock just to lick it. I dont use pb because why should my dog need a sweet taste to want to lick, he licks because he wants to, no bait needed.
 
Wolfdreamer40000 said:
It may not look abusive to a lot of people but, in my opinion, its basically like luring someone with a reward if they take the bait. That reward being a tasty treat just to please the person that put peanut butter on their genitals. There is a lack of consent and videos like this shows that the dog is more interested in the pb than the actual areas it was placed. Its different when the dog licks your cock just to lick it. I dont use pb because why should my dog need a sweet taste to want to lick, he licks because he wants to, no bait needed.
Click to expand...

I agree it's not a good look for us and that it's not something I personally want to see, but I balk at calling it abuse because its diminishes the impact of actual abuse. The dog isn't harmed or traumatized in any way and likely doesn't care, but I feel it sends the image that we think that is acceptable. I don't think I've seen any baiting videos, so I'm speculating a bit based on the context of other's remarks. There's no shortage of higher quality porn that shows a greater level of care so it seems a waste of time and storage for what is likely a niche interest. I don't really care one way or the other.

Some others had said that it's wrong because it reinforces negative stereotypes, but so does fucking sheep; does that mean all sheep porn should be removed? I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egoldstein said:
I agree it's not a good look for us and that it's not something I personally want to see, but I balk at calling it abuse because its diminishes the impact of actual abuse. The dog isn't harmed or traumatized in any way and likely doesn't care, but I feel it sends the image that we think that is acceptable. I don't think I've seen any baiting videos, so I'm speculating a bit based on the context of other's remarks. There's no shortage of higher quality porn that shows a greater level of care so it seems a waste of time and storage for what is likely a niche interest. I don't really care one way or the other.

Some others had said that it's wrong because it reinforces negative stereotypes, but so does fucking sheep; does that mean all sheep porn should be removed? I don't think that's a valid line of reasoning.
Click to expand...
The shepherd is just using his second stick nothing abnormal about it. ??‍?️
 
teutonicdragon said:
The non-zoo will never see us in a favorable light. There is no harm done what soever.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY They will never view ANY kind of sex with animals as somehow 'OK' :ROFLMAO: In their minds the animals are being raped, plain and simple. This goes especially for male humans penetrating the animal.
 
Shalmaneser said:
EXACTLY They will never view ANY kind of sex with animals as somehow 'OK' :ROFLMAO: In their minds the animals are being raped, plain and simple. This goes especially for male humans penetrating the animal.
Click to expand...
I think that ties into a part of my guilt into loving what I do. It seems women like myself kinda get off a bit more easy, but men don't. It's the same thing with lesbians and gay men; most heterosexual men love lesbian stuff, but shun gay men and those who enjoy the sex with another man or anything related to it.

I think my views are complicated on the matter overall. I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to be intimate with a bigger animal, as, if that animal does not respond to sexual advances, they can defend themselves, where as smaller dogs or other small animals can be subject to abuse. I think the morality gets twisted when its more about the sex and less about the bonds we form. Sounds naive and childish, I know, but its just how I feel. To this day I still sometimes question if I am mistreating my dogs and horses, but they are healthy, well cared for, and will always have a home with me. I always let them take the lead, if they give me any signs of not wanting anything sexual with me, I just get my dildos out and watch porn.
 
I think maybe. personally I dont agree with somebody using bait for licking because it reminds me of swindlers and conartistry. maybe if the animal is interested previously and now somebody is adding something to make it better but im sure that is not what many people intend by doing it.

Using bait like that to compel an animal to perform sexual acts on a person reminds me too much of how people bait people who like bestiality into compromising situations. yes letting a dog lick peanut butter is not as bad as what those people would do to us.
The animal isnt really being hurt or stolen from but I think its inconsiderate and unnessessary. i dont see the baiting as something normal, like feeding an animal (dating) to open them up to sexual activity would be.
 
Last edited:
This is definitely a grey area and a question I've had to think about.

Is it using an animal to get what you want when you make them lick something yummy off your genitals? Yes, it is. Then again they also get something what they want in return.

Is it forcing them? No, I don't think so. You're providing a convincing incentive to them but you cannot make them lick it. They choose to lick that peanut butter off your crotch because they don't mind where they lick, they just want to have that tasty treat. Animals that are afraid of you won't come near you, not even if you provide them a delicious snack.

Is it abuse? Well it might be ... but I don't believe it is. Not in the mind of the animal. We're the species who associates sex and pleasure with massive amounts of guilt and judgement. A dog sniffs another dog's butter as a greeting. They lick their own crotch in public. Animals don't care about sexual indecency or inappropriate touching like we do. They could care about being touched but that is, in my belief, because it can be dangerous and they might not trust you. Not because it might be sexual in nature.

So I believe they couldn't care in the least whether that glob of butter is being licked off your cock, pussy, asshole, balls or the soles of your feet. If they want to taste it, they lick. If for some reason they would feel unsafe licking it up, they will stay away.

To us humans, it becomes sexual abuse because we are taught to judge these acts harshly. I mean I love chocolate but if you put chocolate on a beautiful, attractive creature and place it in front of me in public, I'm not gonna lick it off. Because we are taught that that is wrong. Animals clearly have different opinions on what is wrong.
 
This is the stupidest thread I've ever read holy shit. Not one single cognitive argument for how it can possibly be animal abuse. You retards just love putting human morality onto animals because you think we're the same. Probably the same neckbeards who only date animals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top