Zoophilia - PLEASE DON'T JOIN JUST TO POST IN HERE, WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK -

iluvmares · #**241** 05-05-2009, 11:09 AM

Thank you Bullet... in turning it back, it deleted my posts though... LOL

Anyhow... I still have no problems with anyone here... all I wish to do is help those
who are genuinely interested in this topic because there are way too many misconceptions,
myths, and wrong ideas of what zoophilia really is and I don't want people thinking
zoophilia is bestiality and visa versa.

As Havoc spoke of, there is a place online that I will only call BF and their idea for a zoo
type board is basically porn related and that is not what newcomers need. When someone
genuinely has questions about themselves and their feelings, they don't need the first
place they go to to be some porn freak site.
Such sites only cater to what a zoo friend of mine calls HINGS (Horny Internet Geeks).

Anyhow

To re-answer Nate's question... yes there are ways to do such as can be seen in the videos
of women who do that though there will always be a potential risk involved for both males and
females alike.

Have a great day to all

Havoc · #**242** 05-05-2009, 11:10 AM

:

I have a question. I read an article a year or so ago about a guy who died of massive internal injuries after... ahem... laying himself down for a horse's pleasure. Now, this is something that spam email tells me happens quite regularly and yet, I can't imagine how it is ever possible to perform such an act and not be severely injured. Even Mister Goatse would probably be bruised by the force of such an intrusion.

So, iluvmares, tell me; is it possible to be shagged by an equine and not die?

It is, actually. I once stumbled upon a movie...

[Obscene content below, only read on if curious]

...which had a guy in a stable bending over to a male horse. Not a pony, a horse, a stud. The horse proceeded to... impale... this dude and managed to get his equipment more then half way up this guys ass. And this was no small horse. After the act I couldn't really tell if the guy enjoyed it, but he didn't pass out or die or anything so I assume he was okay.

For the record, I did not download this particular clip because I get off on it, but because I stumbled upon it and the description fascinated me. I was pondering the same thing Nate was, and there was my answer. And yes, I do still have that clip.

OANST · #**243** 05-05-2009, 11:11 AM

I'm doing my best to hold my tongue but that "no one is making you read the thread" line is bullshit and you know it. We have rules about this sort of thing for a reason. And this guys entire existence on this forum has been an example of how to annoyingly break that rule.

For ILM. We do not genuinely have questions about it. If we did the thread would not have died. If you wish to be a member of the forum and post in other threads as well, then I'm good with that. I will not abide you constantly reviving this thread just because it's your favorite topic. We don't allow anyone else here to only talk about their sexuality. We certainly aren't going to let someone who comes here breaking our rules to do it with no repercussions.

Havoc · #**244** 05-05-2009, 11:18 AM

Actually, the rule is that you can't revive a thread if you don't make a valid contribution. This guy, while this is the second time he revived it, has not broken that rule.

There is nothing else in the rules about having to post in multiple topics or make a post every x days.

If you're annoyed by the topic then simply don't look at it. Mind your blood pressure man, it's just an extra link you don't have to click on.

Mac Sirloin · #**245** 05-05-2009, 11:20 AM

This may sound weird, Havoc, but though you've got some...uh...interests that I don't agree with, you've still got standards. The thought that you'd download the video didn't even cross my mind. I figured the whole "Tigers or bust" thing was established.

:

If you're annoyed by the topic then simply don't look at it. Mind your blood pressure man, it's just an extra link you don't have to click on.

That's not how it works for OANST (and me, and plenty of other people). Maybe if ILM was actually discussing, but all he's saying is 'no ur rong' in fucking huge walls of text. Close the fucking thread.

OANST · #**246** 05-05-2009, 11:25 AM

:

Actually, the rule is that you can't revive a thread if you don't make a valid contribution. This guy, while this is the second time he revived it, has not broken that rule.

There is nothing else in the rules about having to post in multiple topics or make a post every x days.

If you're annoyed by the topic then simply don't look at it. Mind your blood pressure man, it's just an extra link you don't have to click on.

I refer you to my above edit. And the rule is DO NOT REVIVE OLD THREADS. Start a new one if the old is dead. That has always been the rule.

Also, the topic doesn't annoy me. And only an illiterate dunce would think that it does from my arguments.

iluvmares · #**247** 05-05-2009, 11:37 AM

I would assume that starting a new thread when one already exists
would take up more room than necessary on the server or board...
would it not?

Anyhow... I must be going...

Back to WW2 and my Call Of Duty

OddjobAbe · #**248** 05-05-2009, 11:38 AM

Are we supposed to be impressed?

I'm not starting another argument, but it wouldn't kill you just to say "I'm busy".

EDIT: Actually, that may have come across a bit harsh.

OANST · #**249** 05-05-2009, 11:39 AM

It's the start of a new discussion. This way we aren't all confused by year old posts by people who are no longer even active members. To be honest, I would still have been annoyed if you had made a new one. Learn how to talk about something other than fucking animals. Some diversity in your posts would be nice. Now, as I've said.....leave.

Laser · #**250** 05-05-2009, 12:04 PM

:

I would assume that starting a new thread when one already exists
would take up more room than necessary on the server or board...
would it not?

Anyhow... I must be going...

Back to WW2 and my Call Of Duty

Don't you kill dogs in Call of Duty?

You lose

MA · #**251** 05-05-2009, 12:06 PM

:

Thank you Bullet... in turning it back, it deleted my posts though... LOL

your posts were spam also, dont think of yourself so highly.

Bullet Magnet · #**252** 05-05-2009, 12:11 PM

Focus, people.

Anonyman! · #**253** 05-05-2009, 01:32 PM

Says octopus man. Seriously, they're essentially designed for human pleasure.

Bullet Magnet · #**254** 05-05-2009, 01:50 PM

Right down to their venomous beaks?

Anonyman! · #**255** 05-05-2009, 01:58 PM

Perfect for nipple pinching. Mmm.

Aren't we immune to most octopus poison? Save for them frisky little blue ones.

Bullet Magnet · #**256** 05-05-2009, 02:23 PM

Venom. Not immune, just not endangered.

***Nate*** · #**257** 05-05-2009, 05:35 PM

:

I refer you to my above edit. And the rule is DO NOT REVIVE OLD THREADS. Start a new one if the old is dead. That has always been the rule.

It has not always been the rule. It may have been one day but at least in my tenure as admin, the rule has been "Do not revive unless you're going to contribute something significantly new". Seeing as this thread was actually revived by me, I hope you'll accept my judgement on this issue.

Also, if you post anything hypercritical in this thread again, I'm going to give you an infraction. Out of spite. And love. But mostly spite.

Anonyman! · #**258** 05-05-2009, 06:15 PM

Yeah. That.

Pilot · #**259** 05-05-2009, 06:18 PM

:

Being attracted to animals isn't wrong. Acting on it is, simply because we don't know if they consent or not. Sure, fetishes are ok as long as it doesnt harm anyone(unless it's consensual).

Ah, then the male animal must be a natural rapist.

:

But being fucked by say. A Horse might hurt the horse AND you. For one, the human holes are probably too tight and might hurt the horse(unless they've been stretched). Second, you'll fucking rip your own ass in two... I think...

Um, yes this is an excellent conversational point. Being fucked by an equine also makes for a convenient abortion. *smash smash smash*

Anonyman! · #**260** 05-05-2009, 06:58 PM

No. I'm sure the horse wouldn't mind.

Pilot · #**261** 05-05-2009, 07:02 PM

***Nate*** · #**262** 05-05-2009, 11:13 PM

That fails without context, Pilot.

Bullet Magnet · #**263** 05-06-2009, 05:20 AM

It's a diagram illustrating homologous limb structure as evidence for common descent and have repositioned the human into an unnatural pose to make the similarities easier to discern, but have lined up the human's hip and the horse's knee in such a way as to make it appear that the horse and human are in coitus, and thus "appropriate" for the thread.

OANST · #**264** 05-06-2009, 06:19 AM

:

It has not always been the rule. It may have been one day but at least in my tenure as admin, the rule has been "Do not revive unless you're going to contribute something significantly new". Seeing as this thread was actually revived by me, I hope you'll accept my judgement on this issue.

Also, if you post anything hypercritical in this thread again, I'm going to give you an infraction. Out of spite. And love. But mostly spite.

Okay. I won't argue this anymore. I could. With links and everything. However, I don't think it will get anyone anywhere. I give in to your authority on the manner. All I ask is that when you do give me an infraction, you force a little extra love into it.

Pilot · #**265** 05-06-2009, 09:01 AM

:

All I ask is that when you do give me an infraction, you force a little extra love into it.

Sure, I'm not even sure that they know how much more you can take. Refer to my last post.

Anonyman! · #**266** 05-06-2009, 02:00 PM

They have like, foot long dicks.

Wings of Fire · #**267** 05-06-2009, 02:16 PM

Gay Jews or horses? Because I can attest to at least one of these.

Mac Sirloin · #**268** 05-06-2009, 03:29 PM

Why did it take me a long time to get that?

Pilot · #**269** 05-06-2009, 03:42 PM

Footlong dicks?

No, no, no.....

Try closer to two feet. Yeah. Whole new perspective huh? They're a foot long flaccid, baby.

Mac Sirloin · #**270** 05-06-2009, 04:44 PM

Crank 2 offers insight into this.