# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Wolf/Dog Rape

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

246 posts

- Page 5 of 10
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- …
- 10
- Next

Daiba
  Journeyman
  Posts: 105
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Daiba » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:36 pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partner
Seems pretty well defined to me, unless your hypothetical vibrator is a large wooden beam. Strictly tools until they're visited by the Blue Fairy.
I'd also like to point out that:

> FrankTrollman wrote:DP

is a much more interesting post in the context of this discussion.
Last edited by Daiba on Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

fectin
  Prince
  Posts: 3760
  Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

###

- Quote

Post by fectin » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:37 pm

I was serious with my two dogs question before. It's not a trick question, I'm just not sure how it interacts with your paradigm.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:43 pm

> Daiba wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partner
> Seems pretty well defined to me, unless your hypothetical vibrator is a large wooden beam. Strictly tools until they're visited by the Blue Fairy.

Since that specifically refers to "person" it tends to blow out of the water Frank argument of applying it to non-persons like dogs.
Top

Spike
  Apprentice
  Posts: 83
  Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:41 pm
  Location: The Internets

###

- Quote

Post by Spike » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:44 pm

Oi, and here the thread was starting to move AWAY from Dogfucking and into the much more interesting 'What is personhood?'...
... and with one Frank post we are back to Dogfucking all the time.
This being the Internet it follows that Everything I say must be the Complete Truth or Utter Falsehood. I prefer both at the same time.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:46 pm

> fectin wrote:I was serious with my two dogs question before. It's not a trick question, I'm just not sure how it interacts with your paradigm.

What about it? Subhumans aren't moral agents. Tigers aren't "evil" when they rip a human's spine out of their back and eat their cooling flesh. House cats aren't even "evil" when they torture mice to death for fun.
Worrying about the "double standard" that we condemn or laud behaviors i people that we shrug our shoulders about in moose or geese is a waste of time. It's a stupid argument. Yes, there are animals that have reproductive cycles that are fucking appalling. And that doesn't mean that it is suddenly OK for you to paralyze someone and lay your eggs in their abdomen. Nor does it mean that wasps are morally anything.
-Username17
Top

Daiba
  Journeyman
  Posts: 105
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Daiba » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:53 pm

> tzor wrote:Since that specifically refers to "person" it tends to blow out of the water Frank argument of applying it to non-persons like dogs.

> Webster:partner(noun) wrote:a : one associated with another especially in an action

> Webster:one(noun) wrote:a : an individual of a vaguely indicated group : anyone at all <one never knows>

Depends on whether dogs count as individuals. I'm pretty sure inanimate objects do not.
Top

mean_liar
  Duke
  Posts: 2187
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Boston

###

- Quote

Post by mean_liar » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:25 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:For sex to be moral it has to have three things. Just three. Fucking. Things.
> - Your partner has to have adult human intelligence.
> - Your partner has to have mental competence at the time.
> - Your partner has to consent.
> That's it. That's not a high fence to jump over.

THIS IS THE FACE OF RAPE
Last edited by mean_liar on Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

PoliteNewb
  Duke
  Posts: 1053
  Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
  Location: Alaska
  Contact:
  Contact PoliteNewb
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by PoliteNewb » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:42 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:And that doesn't mean that it is suddenly OK for you to paralyze someone and lay your eggs in their abdomen. Nor does it mean that wasps are morally anything.
> -Username17

If you, as a human being (or better yet, let's say a human-intelligence alien with an ovipositor) was to paralyze an animal (say, a dog) and lay your eggs in its abdomen, I'm not seeing the big problem. Because it's a fucking animal.
Using an animal as an incubator for your young is no worse than shooting it in the head, carving off a portion of it's body, and roasting and devouring it. It is more gross from a human standpoint, but from a moral standpoint, what's the diff?
There is no argument over what is repulsive and immoral when you do it to people, no matter who is doing it. What is at issue is what (not who) you are doing it to.
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
Top

fectin
  Prince
  Posts: 3760
  Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

###

- Quote

Post by fectin » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:42 pm

Please point out the holes in my logic, because I don't really like where it goes.
I'll buy "not a moral actor", but it doesn't fit with this:

> FrankTrollman wrote:

> > Dr_Noface wrote:Wait, so is it OK to get fucked by wolves? In case it comes up.

> Situations in which someone is raped by someone or something that is not a consenting adult are incredibly fucked up, but they do happen. It is not "OK" to get raped by a child, or a mentally retarded person, or a farm animal. It's disgusting and humiliating and traumatizing. But the person who got raped didn't do anything wrong necessarily.

Both posts together are not compatible.
The simplest explanation is that you used "rape" as a shorthand here, but didn't intend for it to have moral connotations. That fits with the rest of your logic, but leads to it being okay to be sexed by a child, or a mentally retarded person, or a farm animal, especially so long as the sexee puts up at least a token resistance. That's clearly wrong.
The complex answer is that a child, a mentally retarded person, and an animal are not morally the same. I like that answer much better (because I reject any paradigm that okays statutory rape), but it also means that kids and retards are a false analogy for wolves.
Alternately, wolves rape each other all the time (related to this: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650 ), and we don't care, but hold ourselves to a different standard for currently unexplained reasons.
Top

MGuy
  Prince
  Posts: 4665
  Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:18 am
  Location: Indiana

###

- Quote

Post by MGuy » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:59 pm

Animals =/= People and shouldn't be given the same moral/ethical/your mom considerations as people are given.
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
If you want a game modded right you have to mod it yourself.

> MGuy wrote:Finally a thread about fighters!

Top

Slade
  Knight
  Posts: 329
  Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:23 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Slade » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:12 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote: What about it? Subhumans aren't moral agents. Tigers aren't "evil" when they rip a human's spine out of their back and eat their cooling flesh. House cats aren't even "evil" when they torture mice to death for fun.

This isn't D&D where animals get to be neutral.
I do think a mouse bring tortured by the cat is leaning toward evil.
The Tiger is at the least eating the human (neutral); the house cat is "playing" with the potential food item (not neutral).
Last edited by Slade on Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

- Quote

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:17 pm

> Slade wrote:

> > FrankTrollman wrote: What about it? Subhumans aren't moral agents. Tigers aren't "evil" when they rip a human's spine out of their back and eat their cooling flesh. House cats aren't even "evil" when they torture mice to death for fun.

> This isn't D&D where animals get to be neutral.
> I do think a mouse bring tortured by the cat is leaning toward evil.
> The Tiger is at the least eating the human (neutral); the house cat is "playing" with the potential food item (not neutral).

A cat's attack strategy is predicated on minimum personal harm. It tries to exhaust and stun prey as much as possible before going for the kill and exposing itself to counter-attacks.
Unfortunately, after the instincts have done their job many house cats don't know how kill and eat their prey. Does that make them more evil than their experienced feral cousins?
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

Nebuchadnezzar
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 723
  Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:23 am

###

- Quote

Post by Nebuchadnezzar » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:35 pm

As a ridiculous hypothetical, consider animals that practice lifelong monogamy, such as bald eagles and other raptors. Say then that one was to be 'uplifted', in the transhumanist parlance. Would continuing to mate with the unuplifted partner be unethical? Assume that in the process of increasing intelligence the myriad of factors that lead to this lifelong monogamy are not, and even can not be altered, due to vagaries in the superscience.
One could then apply this to serial monogamist animals, such as wolves. Since, as I understand it*, the werewolves who fuck wolves were born wolves and could already be sexually mature at the time they discover their werewolf nature, they could already be in a monogamous relationship with a non-werewolf wolf.
*I always found WoD to be unspeakably lame, so I could be wrong.
Top

norms29
  Master
  Posts: 263
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by norms29 » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:39 pm

> Daiba wrote:

> > tzor wrote:Since that specifically refers to "person" it tends to blow out of the water Frank argument of applying it to non-persons like dogs.

> > Webster:partner(noun) wrote:a : one associated with another especially in an action

> > Webster:one(noun) wrote:a : an individual of a vaguely indicated group : anyone at all <one never knows>

> Depends on whether dogs count as individuals. I'm pretty sure inanimate objects do not.

> Webster:individual(noun) wrote: a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>

Individual Either refers only to a person, in which case dogs don't count, or refers to inanimate objects as much as animals. either way the dog-fuckers win the exchange.
Last edited by norms29 on Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
After all, when you climb Mt. Kon Foo Sing to fight Grand Master Hung Lo and prove that your "Squirrel Chases the Jam-Coated Tiger" style is better than his "Dead Cockroach Flails Legs" style, you unleash a bunch of your SCtJCT moves, not wait for him to launch DCFL attacks and then just sit there and parry all day. And you certainly don't, having been kicked about, then say "Well you served me shitty tea before our battle" and go home.
Top

Prak
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 17329
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Prak » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:07 pm

actually, as far as moral agents go in WoD, it's a true Crapsack World, where the basic predication is that "Humans Are Bastards." At best they're self absorbed, selfish bastards unaware of the deeper evils, scurrying around trying to keep themselves alive like prehistoric rat-like mammals in a world of thundering reptilian monsters. At worst, they're indistinguishable from the true monsters of the WoD, and often times associated with them. Charlie Manson is, in cannon, kinfolk to the Black Spiral Dancers, the evil werewolves. Many murderers and rapists, while horrible people on their own, attract wyrm spirits which often possess them and drive them to more and greater acts of evil so as to feast on the torment caused.
Animals get off easy, and are often found to be neutral survivors, or noble avengers, when compared to the black morality of humanity.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.

> Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.

> FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
> You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.

Top

ubernoob
  Duke
  Posts: 2444
  Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:30 am

###

- Quote

Post by ubernoob » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:12 pm

> mean_liar wrote:

> > FrankTrollman wrote:For sex to be moral it has to have three things. Just three. Fucking. Things.
> > - Your partner has to have adult human intelligence.
> > - Your partner has to have mental competence at the time.
> > - Your partner has to consent.
> > That's it. That's not a high fence to jump over.

> THIS IS THE FACE OF RAPE

I'm pretty sure subhumans don't have a moral compass. As someone who's uncle is actually retarded, I would definitely put retardation as a lack of both adult human intelligence AND mental competence. Yes, I just said that someone with a certain genetic disorder is subhuman. I stand by that statement.
Note- Retard on retard is just like dog on dog. Neither party is capable of making a distinction between moral and amoral, so there is no good or evil in the act.
Last edited by ubernoob on Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Vnonymous
  Knight
  Posts: 392
  Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 4:11 am

###

- Quote

Post by Vnonymous » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:40 am

Consent itself is a really nasty issue to talk about too. When a woman thinks you're jewish but you're actually palestinian, is it rape when she finds out later? Even if you didn't deceive her at all, she just assumed?
Is consent possible if there are power differentials involved(personally I think the answer to this is of course yes)?
And when two people don't have mental competence(two people get drunk at a party and fuck), is it rape? Who's raping who?
And the adult human intelligence thing is contentious as well. What happens when two thirteen year olds have sex? Is it rape on both of their behalfs? What if one of the thirteen year olds is much smarter than the other?
A lot of these situations exist and happen(somebody on a blog I frequent reported seeing a 12 year old girl go up and get a boy's number). Is there a moral element when two little kids hook up with each other(this happens a lot) ?
I mean, is it moral when somebody lies to you about consent? Is it rape if she regrets it in the morning? Is it rape if she finds out that you were two-timing on her(hi Julian Assange)?
When it comes to the moral discourse on sex, we've only just penetrated the surface of this complex and messy issue. There are a lot of grey areas and problems, which ultimately comes to mean nothing because no amount of moral programming is going to stop men being men and women being women.
Top

virgil
  King
  Posts: 6339
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by virgil » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:58 am

Because we eat animals, it's OK to screw them? That's messed up. At minimum, there's the fact that there's a slight difference between eating something and having sex with it; and it's part of our nature to eat animals. I'm sure we might argue differently if we, as a species, were more like wasps. But we're not. And really, why the hell are people defending this?
Here's an article that discusses it some.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Top

Xenologer
  1st Level
  Posts: 32
  Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:41 am

###

- Quote

Post by Xenologer » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:11 am

> virgil wrote:And really, why the hell are people defending this?

Why are people defending the idea that there's nothing wrong with choosing a partner who can't give or deny consent for sexual activity? Because for some people the question of whether it's okay to fuck a partner which cannot give or deny consent is an interesting abstract sort of a thought experiment that has nothing to do with their everyday lives. Then again, for some other people, we're trying to pick out of a crowd the people who are most likely to rape us if they catch us passed out somewhere.
Again, I don't think the dog is harmed by having a human penis in it, or by having its penis in a human. It's not about the dog's experience or perspective so much as what's going on with the perspective of the human involved. I think humans who don't get off on consent (or who don't at least consider it a prerequisite for sexual contact with another creature) are fucking rapists waiting to happen. The "what's the harm if they don't comprehend what's going on" argument probably holds more water for the people in the thread who aren't aware of it being the reason why unconscious people get raped at parties.
And yeah, I'm aware that there are people in the thread for whom a live sexual partner who isn't capable of granting or denying consent to sex is little more than a sex toy for the partner who has the power to discern and decide these things (making the "use" of that partner no worse morally than using a vibrator). I know. I read your posts. If you really believe that and aren't just being fucking sophists who think this is a cute abstract question with no bearing on actual life, feel free to actually go act on it, kids, and enjoy introducing yourselves to your neighbors for the rest of your lives.
Last edited by Xenologer on Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Little is as dangerous as thousands of frog-zealots, willing to die for their misguided king and alleged messiah." -Rice Boy
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:42 am

You must not be very smart. I mean, Are you fucking retarded, just because someone's unconscious doesn't mean they lose ownership of all their property, this isn't about unconscious people. Yes, it is perfectly rational to punish someone for doing something you don't want them to do while you are unconscious with your stuff as if they had done it while you were conscious.'
Just like we punish people for joyriding in your car when you aren't using it.
The issue is whether or not things that don't have any rights can be abused.
If you can cut the things head of with a samurai sword right now, and no one will get mad, then who the hell cares if you stick your dick in it? No one.
If someone is Terry Schiavoed, and you happen to be their next of kin, and have power of attorney, and you want to get to fucking, I don't give two shits, because that is not a person, and we have no compelling interest in protecting that thing.
But if someone is unconscious, we know that they usually wake up in a little bit.
Frankly, I'm an error theorist, so the whole point of these discussion for me is to prompt people to recognize that their moral frameworks are decided pretty much entirely by their personal preferences. Beyond that, I don't care.
Last edited by Kaelik on Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Orion
  Prince
  Posts: 3756
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Orion » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:52 am

Xenologer--
Let me grant your premise that dogfuckers are more likely to be rapists. That doesn't prove that dogfucking is wrong, only that it is sick and gross. There are all kinds of desires people have that imply ugly things about their characters, but acting on those desires is only wrong if it actually hurts someone.
There's probably a positive correlation between liking fake-rape porn and being a rapist. That doesn't make fake-rape porn wrong either.
Top

PoliteNewb
  Duke
  Posts: 1053
  Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
  Location: Alaska
  Contact:
  Contact PoliteNewb
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by PoliteNewb » Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:42 am

Xenologer, your argument was idiotic when you made it before, and it's still idiotic. And you're making Kaelik and I agree on something, which is dangerous and wrong.
No matter how many times you want to try to draw the equivalent, NO, the people arguing that there is nothing wrong with intelligent wolves (garou) fucking non-intelligent wolves are NOT arguing that it is perfectly okay to fuck unconscious human beings, or give people roofies, or whatever. So knock it the fuck off, because it's lazy and insulting.
I am well aware of how often rape of drunk or otherwise incapacitated women occurs, and it's fucking disgusting and wrong. But it is wrong because you are doing something horrible to a person. How this has anything to do with dogfucking is beyond me. If you can't tell the difference between a human being who has been robbed of their consciousness and self-determination and a creature that never had those things to begin with, I can't explain it to you.
Finally, YES, this is a cute abstract question...because no one is talking about doing this in real life. We are talking about fictional werewolves having sex with fictional wolves. It's abstract in the same fashion that we can argue about the fantasy morality of face-stabbing goblins and taking their stuff...even though being stabbed and robbed are things that happen to real people in the real world.

> Virgil wrote:Because we eat animals, it's OK to screw them? That's messed up. At minimum, there's the fact that there's a slight difference between eating something and having sex with it; and it's part of our nature to eat animals.

Why is it messed up? I'm failing to comprehend, and maybe you can explain it to me, how allowing a wolf to put his penis in you is somehow so much more horrible than killing that wolf and eating his corpse. Because I'm not seeing it.
As for "part of our nature"...for a lupus garou, having sex with wolves has been part of his/her nature for his/her entire life. When they're in lupus form, they literally are a wolf. So how is wolves fucking wolves not "part of their nature"?
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
Top

Gods_Trick
  Apprentice
  Posts: 54
  Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:02 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Gods_Trick » Sat Jan 29, 2011 6:58 am

Huh, on this board it always comes down to dogfucking.
Heres a fun one, which may have been presented earlier. If a cow could prefer (ie have opinions and brains and all that jazz), would it prefer a human penis or a butchers knife? It probably prefers neither, but most of us like our steak, so fuck your opinions cow.
Bestiality is reprehensible because its a taboo in human culture. Human cultures don't give a damn about the powerless. If a human alters from its base culture, lets say Vampire, Garou, or whatever the fuck, some percentage are definitely going native.
RPG players have death counts in the hundreds at least. No one spends time debating ethics on it. Whys murder less relevant than sex taboos?
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:35 am

Hey, guys, have we started talking about pedophilia and bestiality yet?

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Parthenon
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 912
  Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:07 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Parthenon » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:59 am

At least the space opera race thread hasn't degenerated into the morality of inter-species sex and whether it would be like dog-fucking to have sex with a single member of a hive mind or if you are required to have a three or moresome to be okay.
By the way, that wasn't an invitation to do so. Please, please don't fuck up another thread with it.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

246 posts

- Page 5 of 10
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- …
- 10
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS