I just watched the documentary. SPOILERS: the fat lady fucks the dog.

oh good lord, why did i just watch this?

Anxiously awaiting the EvilHomer video where he asserts he does not fuck horses, then shows his shoe stomping on a pinkie pie doll with a strategically placed index card exclaiming said position with graphical blandishments.

That doesn't even make sense. CWC's infamous dildo-stomp was ironic because his prior assertion, that he was not gay, did not fit with the newly presented information, that he owned a dildo. There is really no reason why someone who is not gay would own a dildo. There are, however, plenty of reasons why someone who does not fuck horses might own a Pinkie Pie doll. *Maybe* it would work if my assertion is that I am not a brony, or that I am not a clopper, but what you said is highly illogical.

Besides, I would never stomp on my Pinkie Pie toy. I feel bad, because it is my least favorite of all three MLP plastic figurines which I own, and, while I have a small scented-candle-and-Flutterdash display in my living room next to my TV, Pinkie Pie usually gets left on a shelf next to my dusty collection of retro video game consoles. I know it is just a toy and doesn't actually have feelings, but I do sometimes worry that Pinkie Pie might feel lonely and left out. I would not want to compound her distress by stomping on her, even for the sake of art.

It's a homage, Homer. Don't be so literal. You're not trying to be Salieri to CWC's Mozart.

I can't even be his Salieri! :(

Incidentally, there's been an explosion of interest in CWC over on Youtube lately. Lots of reaction videos and noob guides and various two-bit wannabe vlog-celebrities trying to cash in on his rising star. I've been hesitant to post anything Chris related, either here or over at DA, for fear that I might come off as disrespectful and mean, like all of his bad-weather anti-friends.

Yo, you in heat? I like a mare with a long face and an ideal height so I don't have to balance on a bucket while fucking her horse vagina or some shit.

There was a younger couple of boyfriend with goofy hair and plump, socially awkward girl that fuck horses together. She describes horse masturbation in it too I think.

Maybe it's a different part of the same movie, I don't know, I thought I recognized goofy hair when they were all lined up at the fence to ogle the hot poon that trotted by.

It's a BBC documentary called Animal Passions. The rest of it's on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl9DdB75d2E

I'm not certain, but the couple might possibly be furries? At one point, they use the term "scritching" (erotic scratching), a word which I've only ever encountered in furry circles. However, there's no other evidence of their being furries (something I'd assume the filmmakers would be eager to exploit) so perhaps that word is shared between both the furry and the zoophile communities?

"BUT TODAY, IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE HUMAN!!"


>>que music

How do you respond to the common defenses of this behavior, Mr JBF?

With disgust and disappointment? I don't know really. I guess there are worse things you can do to animals, but not many... Ironically, like this weirdo I could be anthropomorphizing them, by giving them feelings that aren't there.

Horse probably doesn't care. It's like sticking a golf pencil in your girlfriend and yelling TAKE IT ALL BITCH.

I expect there are many instances where the horse just pees or shits on the guy and continues eating hay.

It's all trying to swat that annoying fly with its tail and he's all like she's really getting into it man.

I too thought this: a horse's cock is about the size of a louiseville slugger. Maregasms? Please, bitch.

I don't care how small it is. If my boyfriend sticks something in without consent, we got a problem.

But how do we define "consent"; what does that word mean, precisely? How do we know whether it is given or not? What is the nature of animal consent; how sacred could this concept be to us, given that the very existence of domesticated animals is predicated on an implicit master-slave relationship? Where are the lines drawn between behaviors-that-may-occur-with-consent, behaviors-that-may-occur-without-consent, and behaviors-that-may-never-be-consented-to-period, and why must the lines be drawn this way? Finally, are the principles we establish for this matter applied consistently and rationally in OTHER areas of social policy, unrelated to dog-fucking, or do we apply these principles haphazardly, for the sake of utility or convenience?

It's a complicated issue, and I'm afraid that in the absence of Biblically-derived morality, an Argumentum ad Squickiness is simply not sufficient, particularly given the rather drastic punitive stakes involved. I REALLY don't want the dog-fuckers to carry the day, so please, someone, help us out here!

I'll agree that it could be a complicated issue. But to me the issue isn't so much the nature of consent. To me it's simply about the creepiness of someone who chooses to have sex with a sentient being that CAN'T say no. It says more about the character of the person than about the nature of consent.

I think Mr. Hands was plenty of collective payback for farm animals everywhere.