Wolf/Dog Rape

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

EDIT : Never mind, I'm not going to have a debate about moral subjectivity in a goddamn dogrape thread.

[Username17]

I've actually had enough discussing of fucking creatures of sub adult intelligence. Prak is on ignore. He is not coming off in the near future.

Problem solved.

-Username17

[Prak]

I've actually had enough discussing of fucking creatures of sub adult intelligence. Prak is on ignore. He is not coming off in the near future.

Problem solved.

-Username17

Works for me. I'm sure ignoring people whose arguments you refuse to understand is standard practice around here. And I'm honestly having a bit of trouble thinking of anything you've said that was particularly worthwhile (game rules don't count because I will never find anyone who particularly wishes to use them, regardless of how much I generally like them.)

Edit: Ok, I'm curious. Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem in werewolf on wolf sex? Garou can literally communicate with wolves. Wolves in WtA have a limited world view, but are actually no less intelligent. Hell, it'd be like saying fucking a tribal native in africa is wrong because he doesn't know what a car is....

[mean_liar]

Heh. He really is going on fine until he decides that because morality is man made to help us survive, that we should reject it. It really doesn't follow at all. Having shown that morality works, Nietzsche really would have needed to demonstrate that his immoral superman system also worked, or worked better.

As is: This sentence no verb.

-Username17

Misreading.

He's rejecting religious morality on the grounds that it doesn't keep up with mankind's needs by preventing change.

[RobbyPants]

Edit: Ok, I'm curious. Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem in werewolf on wolf sex? Garou can literally communicate with wolves. Wolves in WtA have a limited world view, but are actually no less intelligent. Hell, it'd be like saying fucking a tribal native in africa is wrong because he doesn't know what a car is....

Honestly, it's squicky enough that I just don't like thinking about it. Basically, I feel that if I put any real thought into the issue, I'd come to one of two conclusions:

1) It's wrong.

2) It's not wrong, but it's disturbing as hell.

So, since we live in a world that doesn't have real werewolves, I just don't see the value in putting any real thought into it.

[Dr_Noface]

I think the point that Frank is trying to make is that its OK to be fucked by wolves, but its not OK to fuck them, since its really hard to get their wolf consent.

[Prak]

Edit: Ok, I'm curious. Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem in werewolf on wolf sex? Garou can literally communicate with wolves. Wolves in WtA have a limited world view, but are actually no less intelligent. Hell, it'd be like saying fucking a tribal native in africa is wrong because he doesn't know what a car is....

Honestly, it's squicky enough that I just don't like thinking about it. Basically, I feel that if I put any real thought into the issue, I'd come to one of two conclusions:

1) It's wrong.

2) It's not wrong, but it's disturbing as hell.

So, since we live in a world that doesn't have real werewolves, I just don't see the value in putting any real thought into it.

And honestly, that's a reasonable answer. This is one case where I'll accept "I really don't want to think about it."

Hell, it is kind of unsettling. The Discworld book The Fifth Elephant puts the concept in mind, or mine at least, and it is vaguely unsettling there too. But unsettling doesn't equal wrong, to me.

[violence in the media]

Edit: Ok, I'm curious. Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem in werewolf on wolf sex? Garou can literally communicate with wolves. Wolves in WtA have a limited world view, but are actually no less intelligent. Hell, it'd be like saying fucking a tribal native in africa is wrong because he doesn't know what a car is....

You might be. It really seems like the sort of thing that's only up for debate because the WtA book says werewolves do it and say that it's okay that werewolves do it.

Think of it this way, you and a bunch of your buddies wake up one day and you're werewolves. Finding out that you now have sexy werewolf powers, you head out to rock the night with them. When you meet up the next day to one-up each other with tales of your exploits involving triplets, models, and entire sporting teams from that evening, are you honestly telling me that you aren't going to look at the guy that tells everyone he went to the animal shelter and got it on with all the bitches there like he grew a second head? This conversation is not going to rapidly grow offensive when he attempts to jusify himself by comparing his actions to you scoring with any combination of human ethnic traits and genders?

The only reasons dogrape happens in the game with human werewolves at all is because some old indian tells you you must for the good of the tribe and some roid-rage misanthrope is there to enforce compliance. The other possibility is that the dograper is an innately fucked up individual and nobody wants to be around them in the first place.

[Kaelik]

1) Prak, stop being dumb. The issue is not that they are "mature adults" of the species. The issue as far as Frank is concerned is that they are not intelligent enough to know if they consent. See: 16 year olds. 16 year olds are smarter than wolves, they are sometimes physically mature, but they aren't smart enough to know if they consent.

2) @Vnonymous

Problem is that he falls prey to the same silly thing Frank does. Just because morality exists to tell us what has and hasn't been for the benefit of people doesn't mean that we should care what is or is not for the benefit of people. It is perfectly rational to be singularly concerned with your own happiness, or to care more about your favorite cat than starving people in Africa.

[hogarth]

As we all know, in Werewolf: The Apocalypse, the Garou eat human flesh, routinely engage in the violent murder of human beings, and have sex with both humans and wolves that spread diseases between them.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and provide a justification for all of this: Garou are immoral. They do not follow black and white human morals, but their own blue and orange morals that do not agree with human morals. Hence, whatever actions they do that we disagree with (cannibalism, murder, cross-species sex) are perfectly permissible amongst their alien mindset.

I think the standard morality in history has made a clear distinction between "us" and "them". E.g. "don't steal/murder/betray one of our tribe, and to hell with everyone else (as long as you don't make trouble for the rest of our tribe)". Christian morality just extends "us" to everyone. So it's a little ridiculous to classify a pretty standard non-Christian morality as "alien". (Okay, I guess cannibalism and bestiality aren't quite "standard". )

[CatharzGodfoot]

1) Prak, stop being dumb. The issue is not that they are "mature adults" of the species. The issue as far as Frank is concerned is that they are not intelligent enough to know if they consent. See: 16 year olds. 16 year olds are smarter than wolves, they are sometimes physically mature, but they aren't smart enough to know if they consent.

Oh god I've been raped! Thanks for letting me know, Kaelik, now I can get on with being scarred for life.

[Username17]

I think the point that Frank is trying to make is that its OK to be fucked by wolves, but its not OK to fuck them, since its really hard to get their wolf consent.

Wolves are sub-human. The White Wolf authors claim that wolves are actually much smarter than they actually are. But they are still incredibly simple beings. In fact, saying "wolves are smarter than you think! They are like human children!" doesn't make exploiting them for sex any better. It makes it even worse. It makes the child molestation analogy more apt.

The dog rape apologists have made one of several arguments:

• Werewolves do it, therefore it's OK.
  This argument is wrong. The fact that something exists does not mean that it is right. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".
• Wolves in White Wolf are able to talk to Werewolves, and able to verbally agree to sex.
  This argument is wrong. The analogy to child-sex is total. A being that is able to talk but still has the mental capacity of a four year old child has the moral standing of a four year old child. Four year olds can talk, and molesting them is still wrong. Even if you convince them to "agree" to the molestation.
• Wolves are sexually mature for their species, so fucking them is OK.
  This argument is wrong. Again: child molestation. Girls often reach sexual maturity at the age of eight or nine, that doesn't mean it's magically OK to put your penis into them. If the creature does not have th mental capacity of an adult, it's not a consenting adult. Whether it ovulates or not.
• It is the tradition of Werewolves to have sex with wolves, so it's OK.
  This argument is wrong. Just because something it traditional doesn't mean it's OK. There are many traditions, from "female circumcision" to spousal abuse that are incredibly not OK. That werewolf society has always had traditions that are abhorrent doesn't make those acts OK, it makes werewolf society abhorrent.
• The wolf sex wasn't really that big of a deal, and was totally in the background anyway.
  This is just factually untrue. It's not a philosophically unsound position, it's just that actually yes, yes it was. One of the three playable archetypes (and the one that got the most "power" as it happens) was "descended from dog fuckers". There were entire tribes that traced their "pedigree" (and yes they called it that) through long lines of unbroken dog fucking. Pining away about the lack of wolf mates was front and center at the beginning of the book, and even to this day it's in the opening description on the White Wolf Wiki. Yes, lots of individual games backed off from the whole dog-fucking thing, but that is because the dog fucking thing is fucking disgusting. The fact that individual players backpedaled it out of revulsion doesn't make the plotline "not revolting" as originally written up, quite the opposite.
• What about [Nonsequitur]!
  Nonsequitur arguments are by definition irrelevant. For the dog rape apologists, it mostly has to do with argument by analogy to sex with talking animals in some other media. First of all: the "everyone is doing it" defense does not actually excuse bad behavior. Something objectionable existing in one medium wouldn't make the same objectionable thing any better in another (just less surprising I suppose). Secondly, actually talking animals may very well have the intelligence of an adult human, at which point there isn't any rational objection to people fucking them. But there also isn't any analogy to the morality of having sex with creatures that don't have th intelligence of an adult human.

It isn't that I haven't paid attention to the dog rape apologists and their arguments, it's that those arguments are paper flimsy and vile in the extreme. I am seriously done reading posts by people who make them.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

[ad hominem] Damn', Frank, you must really like thinking about dogsex. [/ad hominem]

[Dr_Noface]

Wait, so is it OK to get fucked by wolves? In case it comes up.

[Username17]

Wait, so is it OK to get fucked by wolves? In case it comes up.

Situations in which someone is raped by someone or something that is not a consenting adult are incredibly fucked up, but they do happen. It is not "OK" to get raped by a child, or a mentally retarded person, or a farm animal. It's disgusting and humiliating and traumatizing. But the person who got raped didn't do anything wrong necessarily.

Yes, it is entirely possible for there to a be situation in which if a person gave consent to sex they would be raping the other person and if they did not then they would be the one being raped and there is no in-between where it's not-rape one way or the other. Such circumstances actually occur, such as a recent case in Southern California where a group of middle school boys forced themselves on one of their teachers. Had she consented to sex in that instance, it would have been rape on hr part instead (since they are minors and she has substantial power over them).

But yeah, such circumstances may make someone "not a criminal", but the actual circumstance isn't "OK" by any stretch of the imagination. And honestly, it's the kind of area that RPGs usually should not go, because it crosses the line for a lot of people.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Edit: Ok, I'm curious. Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem in werewolf on wolf sex? Garou can literally communicate with wolves. Wolves in WtA have a limited world view, but are actually no less intelligent. Hell, it'd be like saying fucking a tribal native in africa is wrong because he doesn't know what a car is....

I don't see why this simple subject is being dragged out this far. I don't know that much about this werewolf thing but if these things are raping dogs because they "believe" it makes them stronger than other clans, and are thus far stronger than other clans then it is completely reasonable that they engage in dog fucking. Until someone comes along and proves that the dog fucking does not do what they think it does then its fine to write in that they do it. Now I'm not arguing that it's "right" but why does whether its "right" or not make any difference? What is the point of caring? What is the value of arguing about it? How does arguing about it make the game "better"?

[Sir Neil]

See: 16 year olds. 16 year olds are smarter than wolves, they are sometimes physically mature, but they aren't smart enough to know if they consent.

Bwuh? 16 is the age of consent where I live.

[Orion]

Frank, how about this one:

"Animals don't have rights."

Seriously. Humans can consent to have sex, but they can't consent to be eaten. Animals can be eaten without their consent, why would you care whether they consent to have sex?

[Spike]

If I wanted I think I could make a reasonable argument for why, in werewolf, dogfucking is acceptable, or at the least rebut Frank's nearly histrionic post.

But then I would, by necessity, be arguing in favor of dogfucking.

And ultimately that is what it comes down to: There is nothing of value to be gained in being Pro-Dogfucking except for dogfuckers.

In fact, I think we can suggest that we are even talking... debating!... the topic is a huge victory for the dogfuckers, just as its... not just pointless inclusion, but repeated FOCUS in W:tA was, inescapably, a pro-dogfucking moment.

tl;dr: its a lot easier to win against the dirty dogfuckers by not talking about it. So shaddup already.

[Korwin]

While I could'nt care less about fictional werewolfs raping fictional wolfs* and I agree it isnt something good in the real world (humans fucking animals), is in fact something unhealty, I cant agree with Franks dog rape = child rape (but that my be his hyperbole).

While animal rape (or abuse) is bad, child rape (or abuse, or human rape or abuse) is worse. But that my be (to get back to the OP) my evolutionary programmed moralitiy.




*until we get uplifted animals, and even then I think I would not care much.

[tzor]

Seriously. Humans can consent to have sex, but they can't consent to be eaten.

Are you sure? I thought a burrial at sea into a shark infested water wasn't illegal. I could be wrong and I certainly wasn't thinking of it.

[PoliteNewb]

Seriously. Humans can consent to have sex, but they can't consent to be eaten.

Are you sure? I thought a burrial at sea into a shark infested water wasn't illegal. I could be wrong and I certainly wasn't thinking of it.

For fuck's sake...

Humans can consent to have sex, but they can't consent to be eaten killed for food.

Happy now?

And the point is valid. The cow I had for dinner last night didn't consent to be murdered and eaten, but if you claim it was immoral for me to eat that cow, I will laugh at you. There is nothing immoral about doing whatever the fuck you want to animals, as long as it is not cruel. Animals are not people, certainly not children.

[Kaelik]

There is nothing immoral about doing whatever the fuck you want to animals, as long as it is not cruel. Animals are not people, certainly not children.

So why exactly do you think it is immoral to do "cruel" things to animals? If you can kill it and eat it, why can't you cut off it's legs if you damn well feel like it?

[Orion]

People *are* allowed to cut various body parts off animals if they feel like it. Claws. Testicles. Wings. Then there's factory farming. So much cruelty is done to animals every day that the taboo on dogfucking is rank hypocrisy. If you're a vegetarian, maybe you can condemn bestiality.

Meanwhile, nobody respects the sexual freedom of animals. If raping animals is wrong, so is forced sterilization, separating them from their young, and arranging for them to be raped by other animals.

[PoliteNewb]

There is nothing immoral about doing whatever the fuck you want to animals, as long as it is not cruel. Animals are not people, certainly not children.

So why exactly do you think it is immoral to do "cruel" things to animals? If you can kill it and eat it, why can't you cut off it's legs if you damn well feel like it?

*Shrug* I feel inflicting pain/suffering needlessly on animals desensitizes people, and often leads to their willingness to be cruel to people. Cruelty should generally be discouraged, because cruelty is inherently bad.

Your "quotes" do bring up a valid point, in that cruelty is a vague term which can encompass different behaviors, depending on who's defining terms. Let your own moral compass guide you there.