/zoo/ - Zoophilia

Just so you know, it's basically impossible for a woman to be vaginally knotted. The human vagina does not contain a ring of muscle that could hold a knot in; so it basically just turns into a case of whether the dog in question can be trained not to turn around.

>>6198

If you think about it, this picture is literally an animal crushing picture. As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_fetish

>>6364

from wikipedia:

>There are currently no known laws forbidding the crushing of live invertebrates,

>although the production or trade of crush erotica involving vertebrates is condemned

>by opponents of animal cruelty and is illegal in many countries including the United States.

animal rights double standard fail.

>>6364

Notice the color of the crab? A nice "roasted" red all over? Its cooked, just an "unusual" method of cracking it.

>>6451

The crush laws were all massively retarded to begin with

>>6461

>>>/zoocore/

>>6468

strawman harder.

>>6461

If you are suggesting that the double-standard should be changed to where all life is covered, and not just those with a spine, then I can quite agree with you.

If you want to go the other way and simply eliminate all crush-related laws, then I must hope that you do not live very long, preferably dying by being crushed violently.

Regarding the double-standard, it is a bit strange that not all animals are covered under law. I had initially thought of cooking, but, we eat pigs, cows, and chickens, so, my thinking of not legally covering the animals we eat, doesn't work.

>>6471

The crush laws were so massively retarded they barely held up in court (they were rejected in the first courts initially) and lawyers considered them a joke. They should be scrapped and redone completely as something else, they don't even make sense, they were a cheap political grab.

It has more to do with the insanity of the obscenity laws (which also govern bestiality) than animal welfare.

>>6471

>If you want to go the other way and simply eliminate all crush-related laws, then I must hope that you do not live very long, preferably dying by being crushed violently.

Also this is a statement of such pure ignorance, it's painful to read. If people actually fucking bothered to look up the laws and cases you'd know the crush-related activities were largely already illegal under obscenity + animal welfare laws and the crush laws were redundant i.e. eliminating the dumbass crush laws has practically no effect on legal status besides marginally extending sentence.

>>6473

*has practically no effect on legal status [since all they do is] marginally extend[] sentence

>>6473

I'm sorry if I seemed a bit ignorant. I didn't have my coffee, and, (preventing) animal cruelty is something I hold close to my heart.

So, if someone suggests that crush laws should be removed, my first instinct is, "You want to put a dog in a hydraulic press and squeeze the life out of that innocent, and trusting life."

I do not care much for redundant laws, so if adding the note into animal cruelty/abuse laws that crushing them is included, that would be perfectly fine with me.

As long as painfully murdering animals for the sake of some perverted deviant's sexual fetish is not made legal, whatever needs to be done by the law to keep rules organized, is perfectly fine.

>>6459

i do not condone crush in any way shape or form. yet,

slowly boiling something to death is much more cruel than simply crushing it to death.

>If you are suggesting that the double-standard should be changed to where all life is covered, and not just those with a spine, then I can quite agree with you.

So you're saying you've never swatted a fly? Did you know that, just by sitting down, you've crushed millions of bacteria that were just minding their own business on the seat of your chair?

You're going to jail for LIFE you SICK MOTHERFUCKER!

>>6492

Killing a fly is not a crush fetish. It's pest control.

Sitting down and crushing bacteria? They are systematically slaughtered any time you use SOAP.

Micro-organisms are not protected under law.

Additionally, I do not believe microscopic cellular life is capable of being damaged when sat upon.

>>6495

They are, but only if it's your mother doing the sitting.

>>6362

I have one of those inflatable knot toys and I can get those stuck inside of me vaginally even without clamping down on it. Maybe not everyone can do this though?

>>6471

>If you are suggesting that the double-standard should be changed to where all life is covered, and not just those with a spine, then I can quite agree with you.

not only that, but i would even go as far as saying we should criminalize killing animals for food and other purposes.GO VEGAN

>If you want to go the other way and simply eliminate all crush-related laws,

nope. but the crush laws are useless. because animal welfare and animal cruelty laws are already in place that should prevent this.

so instead of making a new law, they should have strengthened laws already in place.

>then I must hope that you do not live very long, preferably dying by being crushed violently.

that is ironic. i am an animal too. all humans are. so you support me being crushed, yet other animals should'nt be? thats mean.

i say no animal should be crushed. human or nonhuman alike.

>Regarding the double-standard, it is a bit strange that not all animals are covered under law.

>had initially thought of cooking, but, we eat pigs, cows, and chickens,

we are talking about the anti-crush laws. not anti-cook laws or anti-zoosnuff laws.

>so, my thinking of not legally covering the animals we eat, doesn't work.

thats because this is a hypocritical fallacy.

in order to eat an animal, one must first kill it. there are various methods of terminating life. one of which is crushing/bashing/smashing the skull.

>>6487

>i do not condone crush in any way shape or form. yet,

>slowly boiling something to death is much more cruel than simply crushing it to death.

exactly. furthermore, making a destinction between sentience of vertebrates vs invertebrates (hard vs soft crush) is specism.

ironically, crushing something to death is a much more humane way of killing, than certein techniques that the AAI (animal agricultural industry) uses.

sawing chickens in half while they are still alive, throwing chicks into a blender while they are still alive,

suspending cows upside down and slitting their throats to let them bleed out, gassing animals to death (mostly by the so called "human[e] society"), etc, etc, etc

all these techniques are cruel, and take much longer for an animal to die as opposed to someone simply crushing an essential part of the nervous system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_bolt_pistol

>The goal of captive bolt stunning is to inflict a forceful strike on the forehead using a bolt to induce unconsciousness.

>The bolt may or may not destroy part of the brain.

this is in every sense of the definition also crush. sure, you don't stomp out the life with your feet. but you do use a technique which crushes

the skull of the animal that is to be killed.

this is why "crush" is so ridicules. crushing (zoosnuff) for fetish videos is bad yet zoosnuff for food is ok?

i hate hypocrits and their double standards. go vegan, or stop giving a shit about crush.

>>6593

>we are talking about the anti-crush laws. not anti-cook laws or anti-zoosnuff laws.

that sentence is little confusing because crush is zoosnuff.

what i mean is that crush is an illegal form of zoosnuff, as opposed to legal types of zoosnuff within the AAI.

>>6492

>just by sitting down, you've crushed millions of bacteria that were just minding their own business

bacteria are not sentient. and therfore incapable of "minding their own business".

i am not trying to make a point for crush, but... >>6495

>Killing a fly is not a crush fetish. It's pest control.

a) not for those with a fly-swatting ("soft"-crush) fetish.

b) crushing mice is also a form of pest control. a mouse trap essentially also crushes the victim to death.

c) rat poison causes animals to slowly bleed to death internally. internal bleeding is sometimes so violent,

that they can start to externally bleed out of their bodily orifices (eyes/ears/nose/mouth/vagina/anus).

this process can take days, and is much more cruel than pest control via crushing.

>>6362

>it's basically impossible for a woman to be vaginally knotted

false. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_captivus

while human-human captivus is extremely rare, it is possible. a female homo sapiens does have the required muscles

to tie to a regular human penis. now take something thats the size of a orange sized knot, and you'll realize that

most woman should be capable of knotting with certain sized dogs.

>>6542

>I have a vagina

doubt.jpg

>>6596

Then how come there's only a handful of movies in the history of zoo where women actually stay knotted with the dog, and all of them are when the dog stays on top of her back without attempting to turn?

Also, penis captivus is completely unsubstantiated, definitely apocryphal, and at least once proven a hoax. It doesn't even make sense because the human penis is a cylinder; there's nothing for it to get stuck on no matter how tight the vagina gets.

>>6608

Do you not have a head?

look at this faggots derailing the topic at hand, either post what op asked or go fuck yourself on facebook

>>6617

Of course I do, but unlike a horse it doesn't flare out two inches on either side. Given enough lube, no amount of grip is going to keep a penis from moving.

>>6678

Exactly like so. That's a great clip.

>>6461

How the fuck are standard animal cruelty laws not adequate enough to cover animal crushing?

And infinite list of hyper specific laws will/has ruined society

>>6690

>How the fuck are standard animal cruelty laws not adequate enough to cover animal crushing?

because we want to still be able to kill animals for food, clothing, etc.

and we still want to be able to use (crushing) rat traps

see >>6593 and >>6595

crushing as "pest" control or in the animal meat industry is fine and needs to remain legal.

yet crushing out of pleassure is disgusting and must be stopped/criminalized.

so we need to draw arbitrary moral lines here to allow us to criminalize only those forms of animal cruelty we don't like.

all other forms of animal cruelty (the ones we (want to) rely on) need to remain legal.

so we create a double standard based on moral ambiguity.

animal rights and animal cruelty laws are a joke to begin with

>And infinite list of hyper specific laws will/has ruined society

welcome to humanity. we invent religions and laws to make life, nature, and reality as intangible as possible.

>>6678

I know this was a while ago, but where's the sauce on this?

>>7765

Just fine as it is, thank you!

>>6984

Sauce:

http://en (.) luxuretv (.) com/videos/anal-banging-by-a-dog-s-cock-20523.html

http://en (.) luxuretv (.) com/videos/lovely-teen-gives-her-dog-some-loving-19559.html

Anal knotting, too long to cut into pieces, unfortunately.

>>7765

never saw that video before, care to share the source please? thanks

>>7821

I DLed it so long ago that I don't remember anymore where it was. The size of mp4 is about 14Mb, so it has to be old stuff.

>>7779

AOZ_Team_Russia_Jeanne.wmv is the name of the full video. Pretty hard to download, just no torrents available, i had to download from a mirror at 40kb/s (726Mb).

I would love some more similar videos.

>>6608

>Then how come there's only a handful of movies in the history of zoo where women actually stay knotted with the dog

you are admitting that some do stay knotted.

>and all of them are when the dog stays on top of her back without attempting to turn?

because the dogs are held by their legs so they wont turn. otherwise most/all would turn.

>the human penis is a cylinder; there's nothing for it to get stuck on

yes, but a dogs penis isn't, which is what the main argument was about. and if on a few very rare occasions

a "cylinder" can get stuck, then a dogs knot will most certainly (if allowed to) do so.