Advertisement
Advertisement
/f/ - Feral
Feral
[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File 1
Tags 1
Password (for post and file deletion)
Extra [ Is Spoiler ]
  • Supported file types are: jpg,jpeg,png,gif,swf,mp3
  • Maximum file size allowed is 20mb.
File: IMG_1537_u18chan.png - (265.73kb, 1000x1000, IMG_1537.PNG) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Anonymous 2017/04/04 05:23:12 No.1244484   
Add Tag
Imagine a world where humans are male only, and animals are female and sentient
Expand All Images
>>
Anonymous 2017/04/04 09:34:14 No.1244534
Add Tag
Good, although I prefer that are males and females for both but the animals have to breed with humans only.
>>
Anonymous 2017/04/05 13:22:59 No.1244986
Add Tag
>>1244484
My dick would go on a rampage.
>>
Anonymous 2017/04/05 22:54:33 No.1245145
Add Tag
>>1244484
That guy looks shocked because the cats' tongues feel like sandpaper.
>>
*sigh* Farell Foxx 2017/04/11 00:10:08 No.1247168
Add Tag
I think I'd be much happier, in all honesty. I would enjoy the constantly unconditional love, both physical and emotional!

Edited at 2017/04/11 00:10:55
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/02 08:52:03 No.1256187
Add Tag
File: Capture_5_u18chan.jpg - (73.5kb, 1150x414, Capture.JPG)
>>1244484
Cartoony or drawn animals in drawn porn are usually made by the artist to look somewhat cuter and sexier than real animals.
And even animals in non porn media look a lot cuter and have more human traits than real animals.
Usually more expressive faces and ayes able to show different kinds of emotion just thru facial animation alone.
Meanwhile only actual zoophiles find real life animals more attractive than humans regards of sentience.
So even if animals magically became sentient they are still animals in physical appearance.
And while its no longer technically zoophilia to be attracted to a sentient animal if your base reason for attraction is the fact the creature in question looks like a non anthropomorphized animal wo knowing anything about the individual in question then you are in fact a zoophile.

Ethnically speaking even masturbating to cartoon animals is abnormal but in most cases its not the fact that the character in question is an animal that arouses some people bur the fact the character is usually anomaly cute an beautiful and sentient.
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/02 12:31:27 No.1256257
Add Tag
>>1256187
You're acting like being a furry isn't just being a closet zoophile.
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/02 18:49:32 No.1256403
Add Tag
>>1256257
People jerk of to traps and girly boys a lot but few would have sex whit an actual male.
People who like little anime girls are not interested in real children.

I don't doubt zoophiles exist in the furry community but its not universally true that all of them (furries i mean not zoophiles) want to fuck a real dog/cat/horse/etc.

Edited at 2017/05/02 18:51:00
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/02 20:13:39 No.1256425
Add Tag
>>1256403
True. But still alluring if the animals become sentinent. It reminds me an equivalent story:
https://www.cyoc.net/interactives/chapter_84778.html
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/03 05:54:30 No.1256588
Add Tag
Jesus people there is a big difference between being a furry and being a zoophile.
Like I seriously doubt that a submissive who likes playing master and slave would like being abducted and sold as a prostitute.
SEE.... one has nothing to do with the other
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/03 14:21:03 No.1256712
Add Tag
>>1256588
I take your point. It's the same as cub art or kemoshota. Who likes these things wouldn't feel attracted to children; it's the anthro thing.
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/03 20:23:15 No.1256805
Add Tag
>>1256712
Someone who is into cub wouldn't be attracted to children, they would be attracted to real life animal cubs. Zoopedophilia.
>>
Anonymous 2017/05/03 20:58:58 No.1256819
Add Tag
>>1256805
If you search "cub art porn", you will find more anthros than cub animals. So, no.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/03 12:14:55 No.1356348
Add Tag
I have a question. Why is it that the biggest argument against zoophilia/bestiality is that the animal cannot give consent because of certain factors, one being an animal not being able to verbally communicate among humans and another "crimes against nature". Yet if protecting them from "rape" is mainly based on consent, why is it that we slaughter animals without their consent or force them to breed with each other for monetary gains. I just feel it is stupid to give animals the liberty of "consent" but only apply it to a certain act. I mean if you want to humanize an animal by giving it consent you can't just apply it to when its favorable to you, you have to not treat them as less than humans. They also say it is unnatural for different species to have sexual intercourse yet although it is rare, insterspecies sex does happen in nature, obviously no offspring is created but it seems like the act is more of pleasure than of reproduction. I just see it as stupid when you have people abusing animals, neglecting them, slaughtering them for meat,sport, or for their hide, giving them horrible living conditions yet bedding them makes you the worst of the bunch. I am pretty sure most of these individuals tend to take good care if not better care of their animals than other human beings. It just all seems backwards to me. "Crimes against nature" yet deforestation is happening by big corporations, pollution is destroying the world, yet an individual loves an animal for whatever reason, takes good care of the animal, beds it then hes a criminal. This world is just stupid and backwards most of these individuals aren't hurting anyone, yet they're the criminals. Yea you can't lay with an animal yet killing them, and forcing another animal to rape it for monetary gain from the same species is okay(breeding-livestock and other animals). Majority opinion just doesn't make sense to me. just some random ramblings. Just doesn't make sense to me. I mean if livestock and certain pets are considered property of the individual, you are pretty much saying they are objects and should be up to the owner of what happens to them, if you want to play the "consent" card i feel then they really aren't just property and should be given rights like any other sentient being, which although the majority of individuals see them as less than humans, or even not sentient, animals do have emotions and feelings, so I would argue that they are sentient.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/03 17:41:49 No.1356415
Add Tag
>>1356348
Yes it's against consent because the person is being selfish saying "this animal loves me". And hunting animals are illegal in certain countries, specially in countries where their habitat are compromised.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/05 02:45:11 No.1357070
Add Tag
First, the person saying "this animal loves me" has nothing to do with consent or not. The scenario you brought up was basically an individual speaking for their animal, same way a pet owner will say "Brutus loves belly rubs" They are speaking on behalf of the animal but speaking what "they" perceive their animal is saying or thinks through the animals nonverbal body language communication(wagging it's tail and not biting the person who is rubbing the dogs belly). Speaking on behalf of an animal has it's flaws because in the end we really can't understand them 100% but we can make educated guesses as to what they are thinking with the actions and body language they present us. I mean professions that study animal behavior tends to be a lot of guess work and hypothesis based on observations. Even they can't accurately say that what they perceive is 100% true and factual.

As to you mentioning "hunting animals are illegal in certain countries, specially in countries where their habitat are compromised" what does that have to do with anything? In all honesty what does anything you say have to do with what I just asked? Are you just randomly stating random opinions?

I have a question. You see it as the animal not giving consent, but look at this example, lets say you have a male animal that has sex with a male human or female and the male animal is the "top". Wouldn't the animal be consenting since he is the one dishing it out? Why isn't that legal then if the animal is obviously showing consent?

Lets say you go to a bar and someone randomly kisses you or tries to slip their hand down your pants, if you push that person away you are pretty much non verbally saying that you disapprove and not giving consent. Just because something doesn't speak doesn't mean they can't communicate whether they approve or disapprove of the situation. What I am trying to say is just because something doesn't speak, doesn't mean they can't communicate with us, I mean there are mute individuals who communicate with their hands, I guess your argument would be its a language(sign language) and these individuals are human so they have a higher capacity of thinking, but my thing is that there are various ways to communicate aside from verbally. I would say it is against consent if the being communicates against the behavior, examples, dog bites the individual, tries to get away etc. Just if the individual ignores it then I would argue it was against consent and they raped the animal. I guess I just see things differently, as long as no one is getting hurt I don't see anything wrong with it.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/05 04:58:45 No.1357090
Add Tag
>>1357070
If you can understand how the animal communicates.
Take a great white shark: it will happily agitate its body in a S shape when agitated, and circle around someone menacingly when just curious and harmless.
Many animals actually try to communicate their discomfort, but people are not that good at understanding it. Remember we show our teeth when happy (it is terrifying for a bird).
That said, the main argument against your reasoning is that we do all those things because we need a product.
Our society doesn't look in the face of anyone when there is money calling. Think of the African miners. Think of the people that work like slaves to provide you with comfort.
We don't care about them. No one shows them to you. No one is willing to give up his way of life for them (someone does, but still not enough to make a real difference).
Nevertheless, we still consider human rights when faced with useless cruelty.
What if I told you that in some places in India children are kept behind a lock to make sure they don't leave the workplace? Yet no one would think it's right to segregate a child.
With animals it's the same: here you're trying to defend your own right to abuse the animal (it's considered abuse, just accept it for the moment) for your own pleasure saying it's the same as abusing the animal to provide food, comfort and shelter to a community.
Of course they are gonna say no to you and yes to them.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/05 13:36:23 No.1357212
Add Tag
My question is why should certain individuals who bed animals be criminals yet those other private institutions and also some governmental institutions are exempt from cruelty just because their use is "for the greater good" or has money to be made from their practices? Again I am bringing up an argument of animals giving consent in general vs. just giving the animal rights of consent only in regards to sexual acts. Do dogs have the capacity to consent to be working dogs, such as drug sniffers, bomb sniffers, or even serve during war times? Do these animals even have the capability of understanding the dangers that those jobs carry? Do they understand that their lives may be in danger? Or are humans taking advantage of a dumb animal who can’t voice itself?(this is the main argument against bestiality which can also be used towards other practices not just sex) Do livestock give consent to be slaughtered, caged in small housing, used to mass produce resources for human consumption? Isn’t that more selfish than certain individuals wanting to bed their animals? I mean most individuals bedding their animals do not kill the animal and more often than not they provide the animal with better comfort and living conditions since the individuals bedding them see them as something more than just an animal? Again, let me emphasize “MOST” since I know there will always be individuals who see animals as nothing more than sex objects, same way there are individuals who see women as nothing more than sex objects and not as individual beings with feelings and emotions. This one is a double edged sword, but do house pets give consent to be prisoners? I mean my argument is more along the basis of is bedding an animal really where people draw the line of animal cruelty/”abuse” and they overlook everything else because they can’t live without any of that? That is where I stand, in the hypocrisy that is the world.
As to when money is involved individuals and groups’ rights are overlooked, I agree with that, we live in a dog eat dog world, and we are all contributing to it one way or another. So why aren’t those criminals persecuted for their practices yet what I talked about is? (This is more of a rhetorical question, those individuals tend to have money and influence in the law and make themselves untouchable, so we really can’t do anything about it, yea you can refuse to buy their services, products, but in the end someone else will purchase it because they cannot live without that comfort
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/05 18:30:24 No.1357309
Add Tag
Tldr
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/05 23:10:26 No.1357547
Add Tag
>>1357309
Future of America
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/06 13:48:03 No.1357718
Add Tag
or the individual read and couldn't come up with anything to say, so they just act as if they didn't read it
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/07 03:37:16 No.1357975
Add Tag
>>1357212
because they can't consent, and using an animal for sex is not even remotely in the same world as using it for food/clothing, you absolute mongoloid. get that pro beastiality autism out of here.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/07 08:01:00 No.1358029
Add Tag
"because they can't consent" that's my point, if the animal can't consent in general, what makes it okay for the animal to be consumed vs people having sex with it? The fact of the matter is that the majority of the population is okay with one happening but not the other because of human conceived morals. The funny thing is that these beliefs are created by human thought, in nature there is no good or evil, things just happen. If an animal is horny, it tries to fulfill its urges. Good/evil, right wrong, that's all set in place by the majority or by those in power to control us, truth of the matter is that if individuals don't believe in any of that crap, there really isn't anything that can stop them. I mean I guess there is the possibility of being caught, but in all honesty, has that ever stopped anyone from doing something that is against the law? Do you honestly think people on the opposite side of the fence care that you are name calling and stuff like that? Things will still happen regardless if you approve of them or not. I would advise you to see a documentary of how livestock is treated, cows, chickens, pigs etc. The reality is these things are a lot worse for the animal to live through than someone bedding the animal.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/07 18:46:51 No.1358313
Add Tag
Is not illegal eat a beef.

Edited at 2017/12/07 18:47:49
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/08 12:28:54 No.1358630
Add Tag
>>1358029
If you want to pretend eating meat is somehow immoral, I'd ask if you think carnivorous animals are therefore inherently evil creatures.

>>1358313
"It's not illegal" is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether it's ethical.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/09 01:03:07 No.1358895
Add Tag
you fucking zoophilic
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/11 14:16:20 No.1359877
Add Tag
File: 3c0597a465fc5247427a9e58e095d2fb_u18chan.png - (1.72mb, 1150x1150, 3c0597a465fc5247427a9e58e095d2fb.png)
>>1358313
Depends on how you do it
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/13 06:35:37 No.1360539
Add Tag
>>1358630
>If you want to pretend eating meat is somehow immoral, I'd ask if you think carnivorous animals are therefore inherently evil creatures

It depends.carnivorous animals evolved to eat exclusively meat so they can't prescind from meat. also they have very limited understanding of abstract concepts, they really cant understand the value of life. Humans can so there is no reason to say "this animal eats meat, therefore its correct for me to do so" specially because we are omnivorous and have technology, we have health and commodities. Dogs sometimes eat their puppies does that mean is not immoral to eat human fetuses?
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/15 08:33:49 No.1361579
Add Tag
morals is a human construct, we try to separate ourselves from other beings, calling a different being an animal as to make them seem inferior to ourselves so them we can validate whatever treatment we do to them.

Things just happen and there really doesn't seem to be any meaning behind anything, this seems true in all of nature. These "rules" laws, etc are made to make people feel like we have some sort of control of things around us, but in reality, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping anyone from doing anything. Well nothing divine at least. So if nothing divine is out there to stop you, then its only a matter of being "caught" then suffering consequences. But in all honesty just following some common sense and you most likely won't ever get caught doing anything "illegal". Also to your whole "humans can understand the value of lives" that is debatable. They only value their own lives or of their own kind. Destroying the planet, pollution, taking advantage of individuals/other beings for self gain. I just don't understand the point of this convo anymore. Im just abandoning this thread. There really isn't anything to gain from this.
>>
Anonymous 2017/12/16 20:22:11 No.1362155
Add Tag
>>1361579
I absolutely agree, there is no such thing as natural laws, we just create and follow abstract concepts, rules of our own views and culture which again is more abstract concepts.
>>
morality and natural law prysm 2018/01/18 17:28:44 No.1378158
Add Tag
Morality is a construct of the human condition its existence serves as a means by which humans may form a cohesive whole and it is in and of itself constantly in flux, what is right and moral for one generation may be immoral for a later one and vise versa

the laws of nature however are imutable and unchanging, all things that live must consume other life in able to continue living, weather you eat a plant or an animal it is the same you are ending another things life in order to continue your own
life holds no inhereint value beyond what an indavidual places on it, here in america its considered wrong to kill dogs and cats for food, in china its not only acceptable its standered practice

don't wave your morals in the faces of others, they are 'your' morals and yours alone, others my chose to follow them but you can't force them to.
>>
Anonymous 2018/01/18 22:59:48 No.1378305
Add Tag
Well, I would stop given excuses to not breed one
>>
Anonymous 2018/01/19 23:51:03 No.1378573
Add Tag
Fuck no

[ File Only] Password


Contact us by by phone toll-free! 1-844-FOX-BUTT (369-2888)

Page generated in 0.33 seconds
U18-Chan

All content posted is responsibility of its respective poster and neither the site nor its staff shall be held responsible or liable in any way shape or form.
Please be aware that this kind of fetish artwork is NOT copyrightable in the hosting country and there for its copyright may not be upheld.
We are NOT obligated to remove content under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.