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

"The Peanut Butter Question"

Is using peanut butter as an incentive/bait for oral sex ethical or unethical?

  • Ethical

    Votes: 10 18.2%

  • Unethical

    Votes: 21 38.2%

  • Neutral/Want to see results

    Votes: 24 43.6%
  • Total voters
    55
serendipity

serendipity

Tourist
I've seen a fair bit of discourse on the subject so I thought'd I ask you guys what you think about using peanut butter (or any other incentive to that effect) to get a dog to lick you, Idk this may already a thread somewhere but whatever, it's an interesting question nonetheless.
 
It is not only unethical it is disingenuous and dishonest. Fortunately mods share this opinion and remove content that uses bait for sexual purposes.
If an animal does not want to do something sexual with you (sex is not important thus it is optional) then you learn to live with the fact you are not having a licking and move on to something the animal wants to do.
You are supposed to adapt to what the animal can give you, not the other way around.
When you use bait, you are tricking an animal into licking your genitals, that is why it is dishonest.
 
I’m neutral on this one because there is no grey area. What if the dog was a licker from the beginning? Is it bad to add something other then a booty hole if that’s what they like to do prior to any addition of peanut butter? Been thinking on that one a while.
 
You are missing the two most correct answers:
& Jelly
& Chocolate

Serious:
Ethics depends on your values. Let's cast it in the worst possible light: It's a payment for sexual activity, so that means the animal is prostituting themselves.

That's not a violation of their consent, and there is no objective harm.

I've been asked by antis many times why not just use toys? Why not just look at art porn? The answer is of course that it isn't just the shape of a dog's penis that matters [for instance]. A sexual act which is only sexual for one party is incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.
 
Last edited:
While it doesn't physically harm the animal, if you have to bait them to do sexual favors for you, I'd say there is some amount of coercion involved.

It leans toward unethical.
 
I don't know if it's ethical or not, but it speaks to an unfavorable mindset towards sex with animals. The goal isn't to bribe or control them to get them to do what you want, it's to communicate to them that you're interested in a mutually pleasurable activity. In my opinion, I suppose. I mean I would definitely respect someone less for it.
 
Bloodwolf said:
I’m neutral on this one because there is no grey area. What if the dog was a licker from the beginning? Is it bad to add something other then a booty hole if that’s what they like to do prior to any addition of peanut butter? Been thinking on that one a while.
Click to expand...
I'm kind of disappointed in this answer. It's purely dishonest to bait a dog into an act if they are doing it naturally there is no reason to add anything extra as a "reward".
 
  • Like
Reactions: pes
Grey zone there for me.

I always see 2 parts:
1:
Animal does not get hurt, gets something he likes. Is happy with it. All is fine to me with that.
2:
Human ethics: "I am doing it just for personal gratification. I am so evil" sort of thing.

1 is the red line. 2 is the grey zone depending on how good your ethics are.

Basically it is that cow that got off by getting her teats squeezed and felt it was wrong to let the farmer milk her ?


Edit:
I forgot the practical bit:
If you smoother yourself in something that drives your dog crazy... expect hom to be on a frenzy and possibly happily bite your sensible bits.

Hence it is erroneously called "baiting" when it was ment yo be "biting" ?

So, if you can't afford a dog dish, it is totally Ok to feed him on your hand or whatever ?
 
Last edited:
Bloodwolf said:
You can’t call it baiting at that point
Click to expand...
Enticement to reinforce a act for the loopsided human's benefit/favor. Its bestialist/fetishist territory. Such acts shouldn't be taught or encouraged however if they like X activities they dont need a reward.

Ew... Its disgusting no matter how i look at it.
 
Goattobeloved said:
Grey zone there for me.

I always see 2 parts:
1:
Animal does not get hurt, gets something he likes. Is happy with it. All is fine to me with that.
2:
Human ethics: "I am doing it just for personal gratification. I am so evil" sort of thing.

1 is the red line. 2 is the grey zone depending on how good your ethics are.

Basically it is that cow that got off by getting her teats squeezed and felt it was wrong to let the farmer milk her ?


Edit:
I forgot the practical bit:
If you smoother yourself in something that drives your dog crazy... expect hom to be on a frenzy and possibly happily bite your sensible bits.

Hence it is erroneously called "baiting" when it was ment yo be "biting" ?

So, if you can't afford a dog dish, it is totally Ok to feed him on your hand or whatever ?
Click to expand...
I agree, through a utilitarian lense it's basically just an mutual exchange with no harm on either sides, the only way that it is unethical is through an ideological sense and personal ethics. that's what makes it an interesting question
 
for my personal opinion I'm rather neutral on the matter, I definitely wouldn't call it ethical but I don't think it's nessacarly unethical either.
Definitely a grey zone that varies on personal values imo.
 
Kbunny said:
I'm going to put peanut butter in my arsehole and let my dog eat it so my partner can see she can get our dogs tongue deep in her cunt and arsehole
Click to expand...
Yeah Hope your ass can take more than your upper lip.
Just do not upload a video.

If you people pardon me, I am going to take my morning shit now.
Nothing bad about it, it actually feels great, but nothing I want to brag about here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top