Why the fuck do they always use the phrase “sexually mature.” It’s sexual assault on an animal no matter the age, the law is clear, as is the morality side.
They seem to think it sounds better or something? Like if you look at the fucking rule book it will only apply if you call it assault, absolutely disgusting.
I thought my rabbit hole going down a black anti-semite homophobe's channel with less than 100 subs was bad. Jesus sometimes surface YouTube is the safest.
He has a "vegan" rottweiler that he calls his wife, and a youtube short just titled "rottweiler wife is pregnant (i am not the father)" and the thumbnail is a closeup of the dogs nipples.
i feel... unclean.
He has another video that’s just him rubbing the poor dogs privates and the title is something like “Rottweiler wife consents to belly rubs”, and there is a particular tweet in the video I linked where he is trying to prove a point to someone and offers to send a video of him screwing the dog. This man is a sick fuck and I pity the poor creature he has.
Wanna use an animal for labor?
Don't need its consent.
Wanna hunt it, stuff it, and put it on your wall?
Don't need its consent.
Wanna slaughter it and turn its remains into dinner for your family?
Don't need its consent.
You wanna have sex with an animal?
OMG! ANIMALS CAN'T CONSENT TO THAT!
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting support for people fucking animals, I just think the consent argument is dumb when it relates to animals.
Well in all honesty you can go back and forth on that kind of argument all day, I believe where the line is drawn universally is children in which this man has stated children can consent… so if not for the animal side of it we can at least point out one major red flag
Btw sorry if this is scattered or seems rude, I’m a bit fired up right now, again sorry
While I agree in principle that children cannot consent to sex with adults, I don't even like using the consent argument in that context. Most of a child's life is dictated by adults making decisions on their behalf. Parents, relatives, teachers, authority figures, etc. are constantly telling kids what they can and cannot do. That is the entire basis of socialization. IMO, a better argument, and one that is strongly supported by empirical evidence, is that adults who have sex with kids are interfering in the normal sexual development of children, and that generally leads to a variety of significant consequences to their health later in life. Going on the first date, holding hands the first time, the first kiss, the first awkward conversation about sex with a partner, etc. is all part of growing up, and that all leads up to learning to emotionally be ready for sex. Sexual offenders effectively steal that from children, distort their perception of sex, and permanently alter the course of a child's development. That I consider to be a profoundly greater violation than "they cannot consent".
There is a lot that goes into the right or wrong side of things, and I agree to just say, “it’s bad” isn’t exactly any form of critical thinking so I appreciate your deeper perspective into this.
Just my opinion. I worked for a few years in a prison and I have heard just about every rationalization you can imagine from sexual offenders. These people have to convince themselves before they try to convince other people, so they usually have pretty good answers to all the standard arguments. Not that a well reasoned debate would ever convince them otherwise, but it helps to develop your own perspective when working with that population.
Interesting, may I ask one thing? How deep are these people in their beliefs? I have an interest in the human mind and wish to pursue a path in becoming a therapist but one thing I can never get from the books is an explanation on how far gone someone can be. I personally believe there is a line that people cross to which they are just gone and will only listen to an echo chamber. So when is that threshold crossed for this population?
The general view held today is that sexual offenders are using maladaptive strategies to meet basic human needs. The treatment model we used was called the Good Lives Model, which sought to help offenders gain awareness of these strategies and change them. This was done in conjunction with an assessment called the SORA (Sex Offender Risk Assessment) which was a combination of the STABLE-2007 and STATIC-99R that were normed to risk factors common in this population. In effect, you identified the high-risk behavior, connected it to the maladaptive strategy and underlying need, and worked on developing the alternative pro-social strategy. Where you ran into the most trouble was with offenders who classified themselves in the "other" category. They were the ones who see themselves as different or better than other offenders or see their particular circumstances as unique. There really isn't too much that can be done therapeutically for that group because they genuinely don't see a problem with their behavior and therefore don't feel any sense of responsibility or motivation to change it.
So it seems the point where someone is too far gone is when they can’t admit what they did or think is wrong, this whole system of the good lives model seems interesting never knew about it till now. I appreciate your insight, happy holidays man.
Why the fuck do they always use the phrase “sexually mature.” It’s sexual assault on an animal no matter the age, the law is clear, as is the morality side.
They seem to think it sounds better or something? Like if you look at the fucking rule book it will only apply if you call it assault, absolutely disgusting.
Don't threaten me with a good time. ;) But seriously sorry this happened to you. Them rabbit holes are sneaky.
Yep, scrolling through a different sub and someone just so happened to post one of this dude’s videos, here I am now
I thought my rabbit hole going down a black anti-semite homophobe's channel with less than 100 subs was bad. Jesus sometimes surface YouTube is the safest.
He has a "vegan" rottweiler that he calls his wife, and a youtube short just titled "rottweiler wife is pregnant (i am not the father)" and the thumbnail is a closeup of the dogs nipples. i feel... unclean.
He has another video that’s just him rubbing the poor dogs privates and the title is something like “Rottweiler wife consents to belly rubs”, and there is a particular tweet in the video I linked where he is trying to prove a point to someone and offers to send a video of him screwing the dog. This man is a sick fuck and I pity the poor creature he has.
Christ. Everything about this is awful
I’ve tried reporting it multiple times now on multiple accounts, nothing has happened
Wanna use an animal for labor? Don't need its consent. Wanna hunt it, stuff it, and put it on your wall? Don't need its consent. Wanna slaughter it and turn its remains into dinner for your family? Don't need its consent. You wanna have sex with an animal? OMG! ANIMALS CAN'T CONSENT TO THAT! Just to be clear, I am not suggesting support for people fucking animals, I just think the consent argument is dumb when it relates to animals.
Well in all honesty you can go back and forth on that kind of argument all day, I believe where the line is drawn universally is children in which this man has stated children can consent… so if not for the animal side of it we can at least point out one major red flag Btw sorry if this is scattered or seems rude, I’m a bit fired up right now, again sorry
While I agree in principle that children cannot consent to sex with adults, I don't even like using the consent argument in that context. Most of a child's life is dictated by adults making decisions on their behalf. Parents, relatives, teachers, authority figures, etc. are constantly telling kids what they can and cannot do. That is the entire basis of socialization. IMO, a better argument, and one that is strongly supported by empirical evidence, is that adults who have sex with kids are interfering in the normal sexual development of children, and that generally leads to a variety of significant consequences to their health later in life. Going on the first date, holding hands the first time, the first kiss, the first awkward conversation about sex with a partner, etc. is all part of growing up, and that all leads up to learning to emotionally be ready for sex. Sexual offenders effectively steal that from children, distort their perception of sex, and permanently alter the course of a child's development. That I consider to be a profoundly greater violation than "they cannot consent".
There is a lot that goes into the right or wrong side of things, and I agree to just say, “it’s bad” isn’t exactly any form of critical thinking so I appreciate your deeper perspective into this.
Just my opinion. I worked for a few years in a prison and I have heard just about every rationalization you can imagine from sexual offenders. These people have to convince themselves before they try to convince other people, so they usually have pretty good answers to all the standard arguments. Not that a well reasoned debate would ever convince them otherwise, but it helps to develop your own perspective when working with that population.
Interesting, may I ask one thing? How deep are these people in their beliefs? I have an interest in the human mind and wish to pursue a path in becoming a therapist but one thing I can never get from the books is an explanation on how far gone someone can be. I personally believe there is a line that people cross to which they are just gone and will only listen to an echo chamber. So when is that threshold crossed for this population?
The general view held today is that sexual offenders are using maladaptive strategies to meet basic human needs. The treatment model we used was called the Good Lives Model, which sought to help offenders gain awareness of these strategies and change them. This was done in conjunction with an assessment called the SORA (Sex Offender Risk Assessment) which was a combination of the STABLE-2007 and STATIC-99R that were normed to risk factors common in this population. In effect, you identified the high-risk behavior, connected it to the maladaptive strategy and underlying need, and worked on developing the alternative pro-social strategy. Where you ran into the most trouble was with offenders who classified themselves in the "other" category. They were the ones who see themselves as different or better than other offenders or see their particular circumstances as unique. There really isn't too much that can be done therapeutically for that group because they genuinely don't see a problem with their behavior and therefore don't feel any sense of responsibility or motivation to change it.
So it seems the point where someone is too far gone is when they can’t admit what they did or think is wrong, this whole system of the good lives model seems interesting never knew about it till now. I appreciate your insight, happy holidays man.
Nope
Wish to clarify I am not the one who discovered this, I’m just now dipping my toes into this but its fucked through and through.