/zoo/ - Zoophilia

assuming you take her to the vet even semi-often.

there is straight up zero risk. zero.

>>5523

Nothing i know of. Dogs and humans don't share many infections.

Rabies is the most notable and deadly, but if it's your dog you should be fine.

Although, i heard someone on beastforum once said he was allergic to dog's secretions, which gave him rash on penis or something.

You can get some nasty parasites and shit, but you should be okay if you actually take good care of your dog and she gets regular vet visits. Luckily, most diseases that dogs and humans can get are incommunicable to one another.

If you're really paranoid about it, use a condom, but make sure to buy the kind without lubrication or scent or any kind of additive that might cause an allergic reaction and test it out on a small area of the vagina first before penetration. Wouldn't really want to explain that to the vet, now would you?

>>5528

>>5526

>these guys

Just take it to the vet often and there will be no trouble at all. Just be careful about what you do, explaining the situation will be a nightmare...

Infections to you from vagina are not likely from what is known if she's well taken care of and dewormed. Infections to her are possible, keep yourself clean.

>>5527

A girl died from anaphylaxis she was allergic to semen

>>5561

What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>5564

...I possess basic financial skills?

>>5565

and absolutely no trolling skills...

>>5561

thank you mr. capitalist for a demonstration of everything

that is messed up in this world. loved ones are irreplaceable and priceless.

no matter what species they belowng to.

and if the difference of a few dollars is too much to ask for

in order to "repair" your "property", then you should not have

invested into a "biological" organism. go back to wall street

and invest in "douche bags". or better yet, invest in a blowup doll.

they are really cheap, dont get sick and are really low maintenance.

if a sex toy is all your are looking for, then financially speaking

this will be your best option.

>>5523

sreriously... WTF is that pic OP?

>>5591

sorta looks like boondock saints

>>5561

lol

>>5561

but it would also take excessive time to train the new dog versus regular maintenance, so it also depends on how much you value your time. not that i condone this mindset of course, just thought i'd point out that extra variable.

>>5590

vid related. how commies see capitalists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUipCIWj54E

(youtube embeds when? c'mon board mod!)

>>5596

>if someone accidentally runs over your dog with their car, they will be made to pay for its replacement and any emotional losses suffered by its owner

This is false. You cannot sue for emotional damage over the death of a pet. You can only get back the base cost of the dogs worth, compounded of course if it was used for something which made you money, such as sport, herding, or breeding.

There is nothing in this world except money. There is no love, no pride, no justice, no patriotism, no faith, and no altruism. There is only money.

>>5598

That's not true... there's also power.

>>5561

Right, since so many people already answered there's no point in ignoring you.

First. If in US regular examination is 100$ then you people must be really rich.

Second. New dog? free-100$? Oh please. Do you think it is easy to get an adult dog which is not fixed? Or even a puppy. You'll probably end up having to buy it, and it'll be more like 300$ And you'll have to raise and train new dog, it'll take a whole year and will cost you lots of money too.

So it's pretty obvious that you possess zero financial skills and have no experience with animals.

>>5607

Money = Power

>>5596

i wasnt talking about the market value of a dog, since it is currently legal to buy certain nonhuman animals.

ergo they have a "price" and are not "priceless" but that is not what i was talking about. i was talking about the relationship that is

not replaceable. sure you can get ANOTHER dog, but that is only "replacing" the animal on a materialistic level, not the relationship itself.

> If you've owned any amount of pets

i have lived with a non human companion before, but i have never "owned" a "pet" in my entire life.

>you'll no doubt agree that some pets are objectively better than others

false, i disagree. they are all individuals, yes. and thus are all different. but if you try and meassure what makes a sentient

being "better", you are being subjective and not objective. this is called discrimination/racism/sexism/specism/etc

>easily trained, friendlier, aggressive, you get my point

actually i don't get your point. they are all individuals yes. which makes every single relationship unique. besides, these attributes

(of character / personality) if we shall call it that, is what makes every relationship so special. the harder you work on your

relationship, the deeper you can bond. some people like their lover to be more passive others like them more agressive.

but that is based on the subject who feels like that. others will feel different. there are people to whom

loved ones are priceless and irreplaceable (which you dont appear to belong to i suppose)

>anything that can have its attributes (utility) ranked can be assigned a monetary value

false again. not everything that can be ranked, can be ranked according to utility. my favorite color is blue, followed by yellow, etc

these colors are ranked according to my "subjective" ranking system. yet blue or yellow while ranked, can't be assigned a monetary value.

blue isnt inherantly more valuable than yellow. i personally subjectively simply "like" it better.

that goes for anything that is as abstract, such as taste, liste of favorite songs, favorite species, favorite "pet", etc

> And our (in)justice system proves this fact

false. as said, you cant meassure something as abstract as love, emotional/sentimental value or taste. because there are no scientific reference frames,

meaning there are no standards, meaning there is no comparisson, meaning you cant objectively rank anything abstract.

and if you cant rank it, you cant apply value (not just monetary value, but value in general) to this. and if something has no value or infinite value

it is priceless but just because you cant meassure something, does not mean you cant experience/feel it.

QED. you refuted nothing.

>>5598 >>5607

>There is nothing in this world except money. There is no love, no pride, no justice, no patriotism, no faith, and no altruism. There is only money

sadface.jpg. let me assure you that all these really do exist. but talking about money, money is merely a symbol.

and like all symbols only has the value that we attribute to it. not more not less. society might be skewed to think love does not matter only money

or power does. but society also thinks animals are "its" and not sentient creatures. i don't share many of societies views. because they are

objectively demonstrably false.

besides, fractional reserve banking will sooner or later collapse... so no more money. but thats a whole different issue.

>>5590

simple (capitalistic) thought experiment

not a communist. but not a materialist either

today you are in love with someone and somehow manage to put a price tag on that. oh how sad and weird. eg $1250000.

then some totally unrelated entity (me), trades some stocks tomorrow and causes a shift in the stock market which has an effect on inflation.

it then goes to reason that this (although minor) inflation, causes the monetary value that you have originally assigned to also inflate.

so before i made the trade, your love was worth $1250000, but due to my (and countless others) trades, i/we have managed to manipulate that value you applied earlier.

and since you tried to directly apply that to the eg "friendliness"/"trainability" of your dog, i can but wonder,

will your dogs behavious change? will your "feelings" for your dog change? simply because someone traded stocks? and if you are cut off the rest of the world

because you are on a 5 day camping trip in the middle of nowhere, will there be some magical event that updates your value for you even if you

are currently not conected to the capitalistic world?

>>5596

>loved ones are irreplaceable and priceless.

>This I disagree with

you define what has intrinsic / sentimental value to you. not a third party.

if your dog is priceless for you, then it is by definition "priceless".

from a legal perspective it isn't but thats different. law only governs our external actions.

not our internal emotions.

and as for the irreplaceable part, animals are individuals. individuals are unique, meaning one of

a kind, meaning irreplaceable. sure there are similarities between certain individuals.

human and nonhuman alike. i don't deny that. but its the subtle differences that make an individual unique.

>>5616

looks like the capitalist gave up. was probably just a troll anyways. posting shit like this >>5561

on a zoo board is basically flamebaiting.

that >>5616 and that >>6705

>>5598

>You cannot sue for emotional damage over the death of a pet.

yes you can.

>There is no love, no justice

speak for yourself. if you are incapable of loving and animal or treating it justly

then what are you doing on a (zoo)philia board? go hang out with the beasties instead.

>>5561

>replacement

Research the word "Zoophillia" otherwise fuck off back to >>>/beast/

>>7814

You are really delusional about the purpose of this board, no offense.

>>7844

/beast/ is for art/fiction, /zoo/ is for porn/conversations, so his place is here, no matter how pathetic of a troll he is.

>>5561

You don't love animals, you just fetishize them.

>>7857

>You are really delusional about the purpose of this board, no offense.

no offense taken, but i'm not delusional. i'm willfully ignorant. willfully ignorant about how most

internet zoos are assholes, and how there are very few actual zoophiles who love their partner.

the majority or animal fuckers are bestialists or sadists.

>>5561

nigger, dogs are at minimal like $400