Comments on Savage Love Letter of the Day

smooch the pooch...LMAO

I don't get it.

Has Dan run out of legitimate letters?

Wow, I never assumed for a minute that RUFF wanted a dog to fuck him... but I guess that shows what I know about sex with dogs. Me, I'd vote for option 2: Get a shrink.

I know people who act like pets. I'm completely serious. He should try finding one and see if it stirs him.

Dan,
How is it that ecce keeps burning you like this?

Now, that is nasty!!! Really Nasty...

Not the letter but food in Vegas! I hope it was not one of those all you can eat Casino diners where everything tastes like cardboard.

mj...sweet!

Dan, I can't believe you're calling this a "Love Letter".

I'm with Uncle Vinny - try the shrink first. I wouldn't expect any ex-gay-like pronouncements of being "healed" of this fetish, but there are almost certainly issues that could be worked though, and maybe understanding his compulsion toward dogs better would help RUFF to deal with it. Unfortunately for RUFF, I would put this in the pedophilia category - as sucky as never being sexually satisfied is, you just don't get to act on this one. You can find close approximations (though it is of course easier to find young-looking adults than canine-looking adults) and let your imagination pick up the slack, but that's it. I don't think the yard option is really viable - it's almost certainly going to end badly, with someone finding out, plus the violation of an animal that can't give consent. Now, if it's a dead dog, that's a whole 'nother story...

Keep your fucking hands off animals, Ruff, and go step in front of a bus.

Ew. ew ew ew! This guy needs to: 1. Get himself to the nut doctor every week. 2. Find himself a nice girl or boyfriend who's into pony plan, and ask if he/she'd trade in his/her horsehair buttplug and bridle for a kibble bowl and leash. oh, and EW!

Hmmm.... I wonder if they make dog-shaped sex toys anywhere....?

I think we should also note that different breeds of dogs, different species of animals, would carry different levels of wrongness. If you fuck a Pomeranian, you should get the death penalty. If you were to fuck a Doberman or some big gross dog, I'm still kind of pissed about it. But looking at the big gross poops those dogs can make, I think their ass can handle it. As far as dogs fucking humans, I couldn't care less.

The idea of actually being sexual with a dog makes me twitch and involuntarily slam my legs shut--literally--but I agree with what Dan said. Dogs like to hump, dogs like to lick peanut butter, et cetera et cetera. As long as NOTHING invasive or potentially harmful to the dog is happening, you really can't say that the dog is getting hurt.

Of course, RUFF must REALLY be willing to accept and keep a dog if he adopts a dog that isn't interested in humping/licking, or a dog that is interested for a few years but loses interest. If he starts treating them like racing greyhounds or fighting pitbulls instead of pets, he goes to hell.

Let me see if I'm understanding you right-- you think that killing animals for food/clothing/etc. is substantially worse for the animals than bestiality, so much so that as a meat-eater/leather-wearer, you claim to have no moral authority to look down on animal-fuckers. Yet, at the same time, fucking animals is wrong, wrong, wrong and you'll likely continue to eat and wear dead animals without a moment's hesitation.

#11: Yes, but they're technically for dogs...

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/hotdoll-the-sex-doll-for-dogs-253334.php

Yes, John. And your point is?

There is already a substantial community of furries, with media catering to rich masturbatory lives for fans who seem likely to have, uh--limited opportunity for same-species sex.

It seems to be working for a non-trivial number of people, but in this case it might just be even thinner gruel than the roleplay suggested by subwlf @4.  I guess it depends on how much furries and this zoophile have in common.

Re: Bestiality is wrong, wrong, wrong, because an animal can not give its consent.

Dan, then why are you against incest (which you've said is wrong in other columns I think).

No real point, but I guess it's hard for me to grasp the idea of someone who can operate with such a high level of cognitive dissonance. You know it's wrong-- even worse than something you find completely abhorrent on all levels and would never do in a million years-- but you cheerfully do it anyway. If it were me, personally, it would lead me to reexamine the way I think about these kinds of issues and consistency with which I live by my principles.

Um... ew?

Wow. That letter did not indicate to me that RUFF wished to be the K9 bottom. How'd you pick up on that, Dan? Has the letter here been edited?
Regardless, I think if I were RUFF I'd go the sex toy route. If no toy that tickles his fancy can be found for sale, I'd probably get all Martha Stewart on my horny ass and MAKE one tailored to my sexy specifications. Glue gun, fur, whatever. But of course, that only works if RUFF wants to top man's best friend. If he's a bottom... jesus, I just don't know... find a willing furry who might wanna be his dog?

John @19, the key is that RUFF has direct control over whether he has sex with a (non-human) animal.  Dan has, as an individual, almost no direct control over whether factory farms continue to operate the way they do.

Yes, I know, journey begins with a step, first pebble in an avalanche, blah blah blah.  My point is, it shouldn't be hard to see how the strictness of people's ethics depends greatly on their (perceived or actual) realistic opportunities.

RUFF can have my ex-boyfriend. What a bitch.

RUFF could glue fake fur to a blow up sheep, or haunt estate sales for taxidermy creatures. Anything to keep him away from Lassie!

@23 FTW.

I can't wait for the inevitable follow up letter from RUFF in a few months, whining that all the dogs rejected him because he drives a shitty car and wears Axe Body Spray...

I think you should have a large yard and also a great dane - male or female. Either way you'll have fun...;)

Maybe he needs to just find a way to reduce his purity score by a few more points?

http://www.puritytest.org

First of all… Yuck!!!

Secondly, our society’s obsession with animals and their “rights” is a clear mark of its moral decadence. Animals have no more rights (including the right to consent) than do fetuses. While it is distasteful and morally objectionable to intentionally cause an animal pain, (as is abortion) the idea that it should be criminalized is even more distasteful and morally objectionable (which is also true of abortion). Private individuals should be able to use their private property (and their bodies) as they see fit. And if the means eating farm animals, fucking pets or aborting fetuses, that’s their own damn business between them and their own damn god, goddess or other karmic system. Don’t go pushing your morality on me by criminalizing my failure to comply with it.

Seriously Dan, how do you know RUFF's a bottom? Is it statistically likely that zoophiles prefer fucked over fucking? Who collected those statistics? Was it the Public Intern?

can't he just be a furry and find friends that like to dress up in head to toe plush? or fuck stuffed animals? they have this creepy miniature pony thing at target that reacts when you brush its hair or put a carrot in its mouth. couldn't he be the carrot? and he should become vegetarian.

Wow, great answer!! My faith in you is restored, Dan. And unlike John, I don't think it's cognitive dissonance, I think it's owning your own hypocrisy, which IMO is a beautiful thing, and as a vegetarian, all I would ever ask for from meat eaters.

@ the guy who mentioned dead dogs... don't forget the guy who is in jail for killing a deer so he could fuck it, while he was on probation for killing and fucking a horse. http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=25475&in_page_id=2

And @26, Thanks for the rotflol.

Go go go You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me!
I totally agree with this.

PETA pisses me off to no end.

Oops... I posted a slightly inaccurate summary of the news item. He killed the horse and had sex with it, and was convicted and served time for it. He had sex with the deer, but didn't kill it.

Right on @ 29!

I'm tired of these "do-gooders" dictating morality to me!

I sure hope they don't live in our state.

While Dan may not have to report them, as an online sex therapist, the rest of us have no such compunctions.

As opposed to furry piles - those are fine. But it gets a bit hot ...

Well, in Florida it's illegal to have sex with a key deer and a porcupine.

@29 When you say "Animals have no more rights (including the right to consent) than do fetuses," you're not equating a clump of cells inside a uterus to an actual living breathing mammal, are you? Unless of course you're Mike Huckabee, in which case that must make perfect sense. wtf?

I agree with John. true Hypocrisy, like fucking moral majority shit. No thought goes into what people eat.
fuck them or kill them, which is worse?
I dont see a reason why Humans should do either one.

Uhm. Eeew.

While I see Dan's point that as someone who eats meat or wears leather, he has no moral authority to judge the guy for wanting to fuck a dog.

I, however, am a vegan who does my best to not act like I'm somehow morally superior (and I don't think I am -- it's my own personal decision so I don't bring it up unless it's necessary or I'm asked). So, I don't feel bad about saying that fucking dogs is wrong and gross.

I apologize for the grammatical mistake in the second sentence there. If this thing would let you delete and/or edit your posts, it would go away.

@37 - is that because it's a menagerie a trois, or because they're animals?

VanNat @ 32: I'm a girl, and I brought up the dead dog thing, partially tongue-in-cheek, because when the guy-humping-dead-deer-on-side-of-road story was posted on Slog, I came out vehemently in favor of it not being illegal. He broke public indecency laws, sure, but the act of humping something that's dead? Shouldn't be legislated. It's a victimless crime.

First, RUFF should get to a shrink, five times a week. (A young shrink at a psychoanalytic institute would take his case for very little just to have the experience of working with such a person.) RUFF's statement that he has tried to give up the zoo porn is belied by the fact that he hasn't tried to go on dates with actual humans. Its not just that there is no sexual attraction, its that humans are too threatening. deep down RUFF knows that humans will not give unconditional love, but dogs will. The issue is that he can't relate to another human, at all. RUFF's focus on animals is the tip of the iceberg.

Second, there is a difference between wearing fur and schtupping it. Wearing or eating an animal is using the animal for a defined real world purpose (food or shelter). It does not depend on enjoyment of the cruelty and suffering per se. Schtupping the animal is likely not about the schtupping but rather more about some other dynamic which cannot be satisfied. It seems unrealistic to assume that RUFF will only bottom. Since the animal's experience can only be imagined topping an animal can only be about projection and getting the animal to respond involuntarily (such as yelps!). Since there can be no contract or safe word, in practice it would seem that this could easily veer into the territory antisocial personalities and serial killers inhabit with their known tendency to have started out by torturing animals.

Dan, I'm with #17 and #31. Furries over pets. Furries are people who like pretending to be uh, furry while fucked by other people who are dressed up as Man's Best Friend. This is a consenting and therefore more appropriate outlet for Ruff's affections.

Also, lots and lots of therapy. Because this fucker is seriously sick.

What a bunch of sanctimonious jerks you Sloggers are. I had a dog that loved to lick my butthole. It got me off, and anyone who spends a lot of time looking for someone who loves rimming knows how tough that is to find. I didn't force that dog in any way, she just went at it, and would have licked my hand or face all day too if I had let her. When I was a kid, I let a cat lick my dick and that's how I found out a cat has sandpaper for a tongue. Forget fucking a dog, the guy should fuck a sheep or a goat on his own property, so long as the sheep or goat doesn't indicate its unwillingness. Men have been fucking sheep and goats for centuries. The point is, although an animal can't explicitly consent, they certainly can show whether whatever you're doing is ok with them or not. Lighten up, as Dan said, it's better than getting electrocuted, skinned and eaten.

Hey, do you think that a really convincing furry might do the job? He might be interested in people if they have tails and furry asses. Maybe one would be keen on pretending to be his little bitch, barks and all?

go vegan!!!
slender retort dan.

@42: It's just a weird Florida law that I found on a website that listed bizzare laws from every state in the U.S. Reading this article made me think of that site, and those particular 2 laws. When I first read those laws, I couldn't figure out why someone could/would molest a deer, or why they'd have sex with a porcupine. Can you imagine going to the doctor after having sex with a porcupine? THAT would be embarrassing!

I had a dog that loved to lick my butthole. It got me off

Uh, huh. I'm sure you just happened to find that out by accident.

I believe it was the Kinsey Report that discovered 8% of all men have had a sexual encounter with an animal. In some ways, he isn't alone.

I don't have an opinion on the matter. I just feel for this guy. He must feel alienated substantially.

@38: "you're not equating a clump of cells inside a uterus to an actual living breathing mammal" no, I equate them both to non-humans... Repeat after me... A fetus is not a person. A dog is not a person.

So are animal crackers OK? I mean like in vegetable soup. There was a woman on Dr Phil tonight who pre-chewed her dog's (read son's) food. How is that different from a little NAMBLA love? (Natl Assn of Man-Bastard Love Assn). You people have way too many scruples that you probably stole from someone else.

The animal rights bit has been covered.

I think he should give the therapy a try. Human sexuality is complex. Go figure! We like to make black and white divisions for the sake of politics, but zoophilia might not, in some cases, represent 'sexual hard wiring'or orientation. I would reccomend therapy for the letter writer because the quality of relationships he will have with animals cannot fulfill him on as many levels as a relationship with a human could. Buying the house with the big back yard will mean having lovers that will grow old within ten years, can't make him soup when he's sick, and won't be able to help with the mortgage. He may end up more sexually fulfilled, but the pressure of hiding from everyone would just make him end up lonely and paranoid. The poor guy will probably never be totally over his attraction to animals, but even if the therapy does nothing, he should try to find some middle ground with another human that shares his desires, and try to eek out a healthy and happy life despite what society thinks of him.

How can anyone in a Western country who eats meat not also sanction bestiality? As Dan and 29 imply, isn't it just different forms of eating/fucking animals? Read: The Sexual Politics of Meat.

Of course, all this presumes that eating meat can be used as a safe analogue for an ethically unproblematic practice. Yet even someone who says that he ate three species of animals in one meal-yeehaw!- can see that the ethics of eating animals is at the very least an open question. When you write that animals are "cruelly tortured" and even "murdered," your own imagery betrays your conclusion that these practices are okay.

So your advice, and even more so that of 29, depends on a bloody big "if."

Maybe he can invest in a cow or horse. You could probably fuck a cow or horse without hurting it, if the risk of being trampled is worth it. On the other hand, ew ew EWWWWW!

(vegan animal-rights advocate here, :wave: )

If the animal isn't being harmed, I fail to see the problem.

If the animal is being harmed, then yeah, add that to the list of ways that the average person contributes to the misery of the critters who are so unfortunate as to share the planet with a bunch of greedy selfish bastards like us.

@29 (and @33), have you considered what your statement would sound like if you replaced the word "animal" with "slave"? Seriously, these treat lesser-beings like shit arguments have been made before, but it doesn't make them any less repulsive (and what counts as a lesser being is always changing):

"[...]our society’s obsession with [slaves] and their “rights” is a clear mark of its moral decadence. [Slaves] have no more rights (including the right to consent) than do fetuses. While it is distasteful and morally objectionable to intentionally cause [a slave] pain, [...] the idea that it should be criminalized is even more distasteful and morally objectionable [....] Private individuals should be able to use their private property (and their bodies) as they see fit[...]"

@58

Nice try but no cigar... The equation works like this: Persons (all persons) have rights. Non-persons (all non-persons) do not have rights. Unless you are arguing that slaves were (are) not persons, your accusation deflates. I really hope you aren't arguing that slaves are not people...

What does it say that, depending on who was trying to fuck me, I might rather be stewed than screwed?...

I don't understand. This guy has sexual inclinations that are illegal and of dubious morality. He obviously feels guilty about even the prospect of indulging them.

. . . isn't that why God invented masturbation??

Why shouldn't he just jerk off to porn for the rest of his life? He may have to resign himself to never having a satisfying sexual relationship, but lots of people do that anyway.

My advice: get a hobby, expend a lot of energy on your family and friends (of the human variety), and stay on really, really good terms with your right hand.

Question: Why not get a slave that pretends to be a dog? I'm sure you can find that quite easily thanks to the internet and in the end, you're either fucking or getting fucked by a human...pretending to be a dog and quite possibly fulfilling your (preverse) desire and not hurting any animals.

Side note: eating animals and fucking them, is not the same. Why? The latter requires the animal remain alive during and after the process. Eating animals doesnt mean you shit them out alive and have to live with "what you've done" (eating animals is NOT wrong, let it go vegans).

#59

Person vs. Non-person is a false dichotomy. Remember that slavery proponents based many of their arguments on the idea that slaves weren't whole persons. And many people today argue that chimps and gorillas should be legally considered persons because their intelligence and capacity for suffering is on par with small children or retarded adults.

Whether we should consider the rights of a being should be decided on whether they can suffer, not which category they might fit into. Animals can certainly feel pain and even (in some cases) emotional suffering. First-trimester fetuses can't.

@59

Humans are animals. Rights are imaginary, not inherent. Hope this helps.

@64

You seem like one of the few people here capable of seeing that moral arguments posses an intricacy, depth, and opacity that cannot be easily written away by simple equations, such as the one provided by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me.

Congrats.