Dogs do that to get people's scents....it's odd, but all you can do is push them away and say no.

Hahaha! Awesome.

Yeah, I used to work in an adoption center. We had a young dog come in (still big), he was german shepherd/husky. Absolutley gorgeous. He was so hyper that he had to have one of those choke collars with the barbs on the throat, it didn't help sometimes. I think it was early spring and still chilly out in the morning. It was hot inside and I knew I would be hot while walking him and trying to calm him, so I went outside in a tank top at 7:30am. Yeah, mistake. This dog was trying to hump me and play with me the entire time. I think it took me about 20 minutes to get him around the parking lot while trying to pry him off of me. I was completely covered in welts from his teeth and claws. Ugh! I loved him, but part of me really doesn't miss him lol.

THEN, the huge Newfoundlander we had in daycare o_O We would play and I would push him and watch him slide across the floor. He would come at me full force and just latch on to my shoulders. Not to mention the gobs of drool I would pull out of my hair lol.

Yeah, I know that now. But I was 5 lol

163 comments? Must be a lot of dog "lovers" out there. I read this in the newspaper and laughed.

I found a picture of Buddy....

Leaving the morality of the acts aside for a moment, everyone seems to be missing this line - "son found more than 150 tapes of his mother performing "

That's going to be a tough conversation don't you think ?
"Mum, we need to talk".

I didn't miss it. But personally, I'd have stop looking at the tapes after the 2nd one. Might've gone something like this...

- Check one tape.

- Go to the bathroom to throw up

- Check 2nd tape

- Call mom to give her a good WTF

- Hide all 150 tapes from my friends

- Go throw up again

Intact males hump. Intact males will show their dominance.

If the dog is neutered, as it should be, they do not have the urge to go around and hump everything. Not spaying and neutering your pets is just plain stupid. An entire separate thread so I won't get into it.

Bestiality is also still legal in some states. It is not illegal in all states in the US.

Training a dog to perform sexual acts does not mean acceptance or no emotional harm.

HaHa. You said "stiffer" in a thread about sex.

k, I was waiting for someone to point that out. I didn't wanna be the one who did cos I'd just have been accused of been immature :D

Now I can let it out, BWWWWHAHAHahahahaa

So what you're saying is that we should create a law that has a double standard. It's okay for women to f**k dogs, but not for men. Hello, it's the law, there can be no grey areas or double standards. You just took everything you said that had any weight to it and tossed it out the window with that one. So by saying that it should be illegal for men to f**k dogs, then you are admitting that we are right and dog f**king should be illegal. Score one for the prudes!!!

You have obviously misunderstood. I never said anything about either gender. I just said that most penetration will most likely harm the animal, whether the animal be male or female. Maybe there should be tests done to see if that's true, considering all I'm working with here is armchair logic. Back to the point, no penetrating doesn't mean that men can't have sex with the animal. I don't know why you think so.

how else is a man going to have sex with a dog? If you say oral then once again you're saying that some sex acts are ok but others are not. That creates too much of a grey area and you know that we can't have that in law. It has to be concrete, black and white. Sex is sex, whether it be oral, genital, penetrating or otherwise. We can't say some sex acts on animals are ok while others are not. It's all or nothing.

k, I'm gonna make this understandable.

Mersh said that he could understand how penetrating a dog could be detrimental to the dog. Yet a dog penetrating a human isn't necessarily cruel.

However that doesn't tie it down to a gender, a dog could use it's penis to penetrate a man's anal cavity, mmmmkay?

If you are in any doubt of whether men are into this kind of thing Google "Mr.Hands" and if you do don't come crying to me..

I understood quite well actually, but what my point was is that we can't make some sexual acts with animals legal and other sex acts illegal. It's all or nothing. Check out Biker Fox, this guy is a loon, and suprisingly he is from Tulsa as well. Don't know what they are putting in the water over there.

It's not so much about making some sex acts illegal as much as it's about making harming the animal illegal.

Your whole argument is that it should be ok to have sex with dogs because there is no victim and you repeatedly asked for a logical reason why. There is no emotion here only fact, you can't make some sex acts legal but other sex acts illegal. That is why it is illegal to have sex with animals.

You keep saying that you can't make some acts legal but others illegal, but why is that so? I don't understand why you couldn't. And once again, I wouldn't suggest making some acts legal and others illegal anyway. You are misunderstanding me. I'm suggesting that anything that harms the animal to be illegal. That includes ramming it with a large knife as much as it would include ramming it with your phallus.

We can't start disecting every little act or we bog the court systems down with superficial hearings that waste time and money. Is it ok to jack off a dog if he looks like he likes it, how about doing it on someone else, can you rub the dog's prostate if he acts like he likes it. I personally would like to see our court systems spending their time punishing criminals than trying to figure out what a dog likes sexually and is ok for you to do to him. You are the one who asked for a reason why it should be illegal other than it's just icky, when you get one you're like "well why not" it's just about as anoying as saying it's wrong "just because it's gross" over and over again.

I highly doubt something like this would bog down any court room. I mean, see how often any bestiality case goes to court anyway. Making some of the acts legal would bog down the court less than making them all illegal. Your "logic" just isn't working here.