fchan

discussion

zoo sex tours

Pages:1 41
1Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 00:13

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17132689/

Discuss.

2Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 00:16

So zoophilia is going to become mainstream.


Haha, oh wow.

3Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 00:44

>>2 Uh, no.

4Report
stevefarfan at 23 Feb 2007: 01:45

4chan moment

5Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 13:54

good to see that people are finally opening up about their irrepressive bestiality fetishes

6Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 15:25

>>5
ummmm, no.  They're just fun and people are curious. Plus these are old as hell and from what i've heard the animals pretty much never perform.

7Report
Nova at 23 Feb 2007: 15:35

LMAO!!!!!!!!

8Report
Creepy-er Otaku at 23 Feb 2007: 15:56

Now if they wanted to get a good reaction, then they would use pheramones to get what animals they could riled up. Although they might get tired of too much "performance". The elephant sex would be pritty fun though. Iv seen it once first hand, and I must say it was rather "sloppy". *gush* *splash* *puddle*

9Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 16:12

>>5
New word for this?

Zoo-curious?

10Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 16:32

>>5
I hope you aren't serious about that. I don't get off on watching animals do it and in most cases they are finished within minutes. People are just interested in nature, it's that simple and that innocent.

11Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 17:01

It didn't seem at all like beastiality. I'd put this in a different catagory.

13Report
one of many at 23 Feb 2007: 21:18

You sound bitter, and strange.

14Report
at 23 Feb 2007: 22:17

And right, sadly.

15Report
at 24 Feb 2007: 23:55

Hey, wasn't there a post here that sounded horribly bitter and upset about dog fuckers? I specifically remember a person going all emo about it. WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WANTON CENSORSHIP?!?!?!?

16Report(capped)
Raven at 25 Feb 2007: 01:43

>>15

First thing: Calm the hell down. Really. It's hard for me to take people seriously when they say things like that in all caps with a series of exclamation points and question marks.

In regard to your question (if it can be considered a question), I don't know. I didn't find the comment to be that offensive, but another mod seems to have. There may have been a report on it or something.

17Report
at 25 Feb 2007: 13:40

Well, thank you for telling us. The important thing is that we know now. It means a lot, it really does.

18Report
stevefarfan at 25 Feb 2007: 22:23

Haha, I saw the link finally.  I'm suprised that people pay for it, but I'm not suprised that people do look.  It's not like those  animals have much privacy, and since they tend to have seasons, you can pretty much predict when they will do it, thus them zookeepers can ready an audience. =P

19Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 02:28

>>15
Acctually it was in response to two other posts and what I hear dogfuckers saying all the time on random furry boards.  It's amazing that dogfuckers can say whatever they want but if a non dogfucker tries to rebut it the post is deleted, it's truly amazing how normal people have to walk on eggshells here.

20Report(capped)
Raven at 26 Feb 2007: 02:59

>>19

You don't have to in regard to that. I want to make that clear before anyone gets the wrong idea. You can voice your opinion in regard to certain kinds of behavior. If you do not like it, you may say so. What we do not allow is for you to attack a specific individual (with the exception of things like ethnic groups). But you aren't doing that, and as long as it stays that way (and you don't start any other drama by taking things to the extreme), there won't be a problem.

It is true that your terminology can be considered quite rude. However, I'm not about to start policing on account of that.

So that's the admin ruling on the matter. Just don't let it go to your head.

21Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 04:01

>>20
I appreciate it, you're possibly the only mod here without an agenda and that has a level head toward both sides of most group discussions.  To reiterate what my post WAS was that i've noticed that dogfuckers at least the ones i see on furry boards seem to have this bizarre idea that a huge cross section of the general populatiou secretly harbors that incredibly niche fetish (abuse of the second worst kind imo) and aren't 3dgie enough to wear it on their sleeve which is absolutely ridiculous.  This mindset was evident by the posts from >>2 and >>5, i was merely stating that this is bs, people don't go to those tours because they are into bestiality, they go because their supposedly fun and educational, and it's kind of a wild and crazy thing to do.

22Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 08:19

>>19

This is fchan. There are no normal people here.

23Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 09:09

>>21 kindly bother to take the time to hunt up statistics regarding this (dog *******) kind of behavior.
out of regular populace it seems there is a rate at or near 24% for males and 12% for females - current studies seem to be slightly higher on the order of 6-10% higher.
taking that into consideration then adding in the furry filter option, that leads to the quiet logical conclusion that the dog
******* are a lot more common than the vocal non dog *******
would like to believe. using abrasive behavior to try to make your point correct neither makes your point correct nor does it make people listen.

24Report (sage)
at 26 Feb 2007: 11:02

>>21
Yeah, I agree that those dogfuckers are a problem. Thankfully, they're in the minority. It's a good thing for our society that they're outnumbered by the donkeyfuckers and come nowhere near to the much higher numbers of the kiddyfuckers. They do outnumber the skunkfuckers though, and probably have greater numbers then the chickenfuckers. Motherfuckers definitely outnumber them, though not as greatly as the smaller base of daddyfuckers or unclefuckers.  Their greatly overshadowed by those boyfuckers, grannyfuckers, manfuckers and assfuckers. However, I'm not sure about how they compare to the numbers of goatfuckers, but they probably number a lot less than the shitfuckers, though not numbering near as many as meatfuckers or foodfuckers. The less said about those sockfuckers the better.

In any event, thinking over your brilliantly thought-out arguments and sound, carefully researched facts that you've presented here, I'm sure you are not a member of any of the above groups. In fact, I'm sure you're the sort that will never fuck another being of thing in your entire life. That being so, it is with the fondest thoughts and best wishes that I hope you continue to achieve happiness when you go fuck yourself instead.

[Close captioned for the humor impaired]

25Report
Creepy House at 26 Feb 2007: 14:44

>>24
Quite a rise in selffuckers these days isnt there?

26Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 16:47

>>24
Is a dogfucker. His opinion is biased and therefore, doesn't count.

27Report (sage)
at 26 Feb 2007: 17:45

>>26
Nah. I'm just a plain old fucker. in fact, I'm such an old-school fucker that I'm a fucking fucker. People that have known me for a long time often comment, "Fuck, but that fucking fucker is a fucking fucker, though he's fucking not a fucking fuck."

Besides, you don't want to fucking discount my fucking opinion, as it fucking held that those fucking dogfuckers are fucking fucks, just fucking like fucking >>21 fucking said, which would fucking mean that you fucking think that they're fucking not a problem- and that's fucked.

But what the fuck do I fucking know?

28Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 17:54

>>27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VKFkbns4bs

29Report
Benjamin at 26 Feb 2007: 18:57

Oh for the love of fuck people.. Let it go. All your ranting and raving wont make anyone change their minds about anything. It just makes you feel angry and gives them something new to bitch about here and elsewhere. Let it go, dear children. Let it go.

30Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 20:22

>>23
Those statistics are the biggest bunch of bullshit ever.  You would have acctually gone out and searched for a reliable poll instead of something you probably saw on a bestiality board that you quoted to make you feel more secure about your vice.  Oh wait, i got a reliable poll right here that was huge, and accross a large cross section of the american populace.

"Fact: Of the almost 6000 people females interviewed for the Kinsey comprehensive 1953 study on sexuality, only three reported that they had had sexual intercourse with an animal, two as preadolescents with dogs, and only one as an adult. Another study done in 1974 found no women who had experienced intercourse with an animal (Hunt). The percentages of adult human females who have had any type of sexual contact with animals are low -- 3.6 percent in the Kinsey study, and 1.9 percent in the Hunt sample. The animals involved were most commonly dogs and cats, and the sexual activities most often reported were general body contacts with the animals, and cunnilingus performed by animals.

Male animal contacts are more common, although the total percentages still remain quite low. Eight percent of Kinsey's sample brought themselves to the point of orgasm with an animal, and 4.9 percent of Hunt's sample did. Male sexual contacts with animals were more common among rural farm dwellers than urban boys. Coitus was the most common sexual activity, usually with animals, such as calves, sheep, and burros. For both males and females, their encounters with animals were most likely to have occurred before puberty, and to have been sporadic encounters with little consequence on the people's sexual development"

Minus one argument for the dogfucker appologists

31Report
one of many at 26 Feb 2007: 21:06

You forgot the star fuckers, 24

32Report
at 26 Feb 2007: 21:25

>>24
>>27

You might be funny if i had said the word "fuck" more than just once in my post.  Wait a second, you obviously can't be funny if your life depended on it.

Please stop spamming up the topic (mods?) and address the topic at hand if your going to post anything, also please stop sexually abusing lower life forms that don't understand what your doing to them because women have rejected you your whole life.

33Report (sage)
at 26 Feb 2007: 23:08

>>32
Sorry, but I'm not one of those "dogfuckers" you (et al) have been going on about. The only lower lifeform I've abused in my life has been of the human variety, and those few generally deserved it. Anyone lacking a discernible sense of humor usually does.

As for spamming the topic... Hey, nice to meet you, Mr. Pot. I seem to recall the initial post dealing with something about nice, normal people actually taking the time out to gawk at animals getting it onanfd enjooying the experience; the reasons the article that was  cited stated as being both curiosity and the illicit thrill of watching critters go through the joys of reproductive mating behavior in an educational setting without the viewers all having to be depraved, deviant dogfuckers. The "dogfucker apologists," Olympic strawman waving and Kinsey report quoting didn't come from me, y'know.

Tell ya what, Sport: you knock off the "dogfucker" stuff and I'll cease using fuck as an exclamation, noun, adjective, verb and adverb- with or without the dog- prefix. I'm certain the mods would be a lot happier if we both cut back on that crap (though I do claim a slight advantage in that +I+ wasn't the one being all serious and trying to Bring The Drama).

34Report(capped)
Raven at 27 Feb 2007: 01:00

Enough drama.

Why is it so hard to let someone voice their opinion and move on?

35Report (sage)
at 27 Feb 2007: 04:54

>>34
Because their opinions are wrong.

Question for you, Raven: why is it so hard to just give people the freedom to disagree without always trying to ride in as some sage voice of reason and moderation? You just stick out your tongue at those who are foolish enough to have an argument on a chan board. But why not? It's as good a place as any.

I appreciate the likely possibility that you're just tired of reading us day after day. I don't blame you. I can't read this stuff every day. So, take a break. Tell the other mods to pick up the slack in /dis/ for a while. You'll probably be glad you did.

36Report
itoril#e0pMofP/AM at 27 Feb 2007: 06:18

>>35
"Because their opinions are wrong."

Lol. I hope that was a joke.

"...why is it so hard to just give people the freedom to disagree without always trying to ride in as some sage voice of reason and moderation?"

Um, that's what moderators do. They... wait for it... moderate!

37Report(capped)
Raven at 27 Feb 2007: 08:18

>>35

You can disagree with their opinions by sharing your own. But if it's done in the way a five year old would do it, I'm going to consider it drama.

So the day I stop stepping in will be the day when everyone learns to post in a more mature manner. Until then, be glad I'm just asking for it to be toned down and not just outright deleting posts.

38Report
at 27 Feb 2007: 10:54

>>35
 you lose IMO

39Report
somebody else at 27 Feb 2007: 23:17

But seriously, what wrong with fucking animals. They can appreciate it like people do to some degree. I mean, they sure ain't for fuck on the inside but they know how to like the feel of it sometimes.

40Report
at 28 Feb 2007: 00:47

>>30
ehhh. those statistics are from rock solid independent research projects - kensy has been included in the overall factoring.
Some people bother to take time to verify what they type.

55Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage