[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I didn't want to threadjack a serious discussion in the Religion forum, but I was interested in DDD's distinction between pedophiles and gays, as the former involves an act for which consent cannot be given, while the latter involves consenting adults. But he may have overshot when he extended the consent distinction to bestiality. Whenever guests visit our home, our dog Louie not only consents, but proceeds to commence the act to the horror of his master (yeah, right, "master") and the embarrassed chuckles of the recipient of Louie's affections. If asked, I'm sure Louie would produce an affidavit, witnessed by multiple canine colleagues, that yes, he wished to have a go with any human's leg (or worse), and he was doing so voluntarily with a sound mind, such as it is. This is particularly odd as, thanks to his vet, Louie bade farewell to his package a few weeks after his birth.

But I suppose the issue of consent in the context of bestiality relates to the human catcher, not the canine pitcher, as most of our guests find the ordeal humiliating and unpleasant. Seriously, I don't know what's more embarrassing, when a dog begins to make sweet love to my leg, or insists on parking his snout in my crotch. Perhaps I need to bathe more frequently than weekly.

Dogs, so wonderful to have around.