Don't read this is you care about her big secret.
So, would you stay with a girl who told you she blew her dog?
My answer: Christ no. Yech. Yeeeeeech. boogidyboogidgy. I get the willies just thinking about it. If the couple in the flick ends up together it can only be because he went down on his cat or something.
Holly mother of god I think I'm going to be sick. That was the secret oh god I just saw the trailer. I mean god why I'm going to be sick, never be clean again must wash brain with gun. There are just some lines that must not be crosed by cinima and this is one, I'm all for freedom in art but no no no! Bad bad bad flim makers bad no no no.
ps poor dog
So what's the big deal? She performed oral on her dog. Hate to tell you this, but I'm more sickened by the horse racing and steeplechasing industry, greyhound racing, and tail docking and ear cropping of dogs in the name of "fashion". They get used for medical testing, put in the line of fire as police dogs (and horses), and forced to run themselves ragged in the Iditarod run. It's fine to voluntarily mutilate their bodies to prevent a "puppy problem" and the possibility of future disease that could be just as effectively managed if owners were as responsible and diligent as they should be.
And you think it's sick that someone pleasures their dog?
"And you think it's sick that someone pleasures their dog?"
It is sick. The other things you mentioned are also problems, but it's not an either/or question. Frankly, I'm not worried about the effect it has on the dog so much as the person who'd be willing to do that.
Why? I don't see what effect it would have on them other than they are more open minded. What effects would you be worried about?
shareOpen-minded?? Please tell me you're joking. People who have sex with animals are open-minded? What about pedophiles? Are they "open-minded" as well?
"Effect" was the wrong word. Here's my point: your post implied that the problem was how it affected the dog, and that's not what most people object to. Most people would object to being with someone who was capable of doing that. Did you read the other responses on this thread?
Sure, people who have sex with animals are more open minded. It doesn't qualify the type of sex though. Just as people can hurt other people during sex, so can a person hurt an animal. Some folks have loving, caring sex with animals, others use them as sex slaves and mistreat them.
Pedophiles are also open minded, but to the detriment of children. Having sex with an animal and having sex with a child are two very different things, unless of course the animal is immature, but even then there are distinct differences.
And it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if someone told me they had performed oral sex on their dog. It would bother me if they told me they then bit off the dog's penis and watched it bleed to death.
You still haven't clarified the "effect" it would have on the perpetrator of such an act. What effect are you worried about?
Any type of sex with an animal is abuse for the simple reason that animals have no ability to consent. It's exploiting the relationship between the animal's owner and the animal. Whatever fantasy justifications you want to come up with, the simple fact is that animals cannot consent to sex with humans.
"Pedophiles are also open minded, but to the detriment of children."
What load of horsesh*t. That's like saying murderers are open minded to the detriment of their victims.
"And it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if someone told me they had performed oral sex on their dog."
Big surprise there, perv.
"You still haven't clarified the "effect" it would have on the perpetrator of such an act. What effect are you worried about?"
Go back and reread my last post. I explained that "effect" was the wrong word, and I reworded what I was trying to say.
And everything else people do with pets isn't exploitation on some level or another? Way to double standard. How do you know your dog really wants to play ball with you? You're just exploiting their ability to retrieve, aren't you? How do you know dogs like to run around a racetrack? You're just exploiting their ability to run, and you get to make money off it in the meantime. How do you know dogs like tracking down criminals and having their lives put at risk as a result?
Oh, but they *do* consent to that, don't they? Of course they do. There's no moral argument against doing those things because it's not frowned upon by archaic religious tenets.
As for the issue of consent from an for sex animal: Now you're just demonstrating your own ignorance and usage of fantasy justifications. Sex is a base desire, all creatures have it, and they can consent to it if it's their desire to do so. They can even solicit it. Get your head out of 50 year old dogmas dictated by archaic "research".
And when I say open-minded, I use it in neither a positive or negative connotation. It just means the ability to reason or comprehend things in a way that is different to the status quo. That reasoning and comprehension can either be good or bad. In the case of a murderer and a paedophile, bad. In the case of someone who has sex with an animal, it could be either good or bad for the reasons already described.
And if being able to see the facts of a matter makes me a perv, well, so be it. Better than being a narrow-minded, misinformed prude.
[deleted]
> I'm afraid for any pets you may have.
Why? I'm not a practitioner of sex with animals. But I can question the inordinate response people have to it all I want, can't I?
> You're using the same logic that you used to refute the previous statement.
You picked that up that much, didn't you? Congratulations. Now stretch your intellect just a little further, and realise that I had in fact use a little thing called sarcasm to highlight the double standard that renders the original poster's argument moot, not mine. Any ownership of an animal in any form *is* exploitation, there's no avoiding it.
> Also, by your reasoning, if a child consents to having sex with a pedophile, then pedophilia is alright?
Of course not. Pedophilia is a completely different kettle of fish to sex with animals. A human child lives within the constraints of human morality, and even if they did consent to it, and even enjoy it, the upshot of that would be they would lose respect for the consequences of the act, leading to a life of promiscuity that would be inappropriate for a child, given that even if they are old enough to procreate, most aren't emotionally mature enough or financially independent enough to raise a child of their own.
> Or if a person consents to being murdered, murder is alright?
Now you're just being silly. Murder is defined by the taking of life without consent. If you consent to it, it can't be murder, can it? Of course the courts are still arguing over the matter of assisted suicide, but that's an entirely seperate issue.
> And who mentioned "religious tenets"? Homosexuality was quite prevalent in "archaic" doctrine, yet is now viewed down upon by many religions.
You mean modern religion frowns down upon it, and thus it's not archaic? Please. That's exactly what makes its tenets archaic.
> Regardless of the "moral argument" the physiological argument is quite simple: AIDS. One of the main theories about its transfer from primate to human is through sexual contact.
And your ignorance continues to show through. It was the consumption of primate meat by natives that is the leading and most widely accepted hypothesis for the rise of AIDS in human society, not fornication with an ape. And guess what? You haven't got a hope in hell of getting AIDS from a dog, horse, cow, sheep, or other non-primate by having sex with it, unless two people share an animal. You can possibly get Cruetzfeldt-Jacob's disease from eating cattle with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. You can get bird flu from eating infected duck or being sneezed on by any number of waterfowl. Or rabies by being bitten by a rabid dog. So what's the point of your argument?
> Human beings are pretty much the only organisms that engage in it for reason other than reproduction.
Still quoting 50 year old hypotheses there, aren't we? Go do some basic research on the internet about animal behavour, and you will see just how wrong you are.
> A simple matter of biology, is the fact that animals cannot impregnate humans and vice versa, which is evolution practically saying that it simply isn't meant to be.
Of course. It was never meant to be for a dog and a human to produce offspring. But it was also never meant to be for horses to be ridden by people, pigs to be raised in 3 by 6 foot pens their entire life, calves to be raised in boxes, chickens to spend their entire lives in a cage in a battery, dogs to be used in the police force, rats used in medical science, and so on, and so forth...
But there's more to animal behaviour than just genetics. Believe it or not, higher mammals have brains and think. And they can make decisions that are not based in the basic, genetic "will to survive". Again, do a bit of reading before spewing narrow-minded tripe such as yours.
> PETA would be against what you're saying. And they're insane.
Something we agree on. PETA may have their hearts in the right place, but are fundamentally clueless when it comes to simple issues of common sense with animals. I wouldn't trust any argument PETA used against sexual relations with animal, given they are almost as poorly informed as you seem to be.
> And hopefully this'll be the first and last time that I hear someone being called a prude for not enjoying bestiality.
I'm not asking anyone to enjoy it. Just accept that it's a different sexual orientation that people can have that in many cases is not causing any harm to anyone, so why harp on so much about it?
[deleted]
> You've trapped yourself into a hole.
I fail to see how I have done so. All you've done is verify the fact that for the most part the only way any person has in the way of a relationship with an animal is through exploitation. What we really are trying to ascertain here is why certain types of exploitation are accepted, and others are not.
Ultimately, it comes down to morality, which is defined by the beliefs of each society, and every society is different. Using your example of a "jungle-child" (whom you laughably exclude from the definition of a person thanks only to their raising and their behaviour), that child isn't bound by our western morals, or any other moral code now other than the one it knows as a result of its nurture, correct? So the only thing defining whether or not it would be bad to have sex with them would be because doing so would cause distress to them in some direct way as defined by their own behaviour and value system. For all you know, such a jungle child may enjoy it. There are examples of such behaviour in some societies that allow such interaction. What makes it repulsive is the belief system to which you subscribe.
And just so we are crystal clear, I as a person "such as myself" has no interest in such activities, given that if a child is not of sexual maturity, it's not ready for sex thanks to the inherent physical and physiological restrictions.
> And no, you cannot get AIDs from a dog, but there are other diseases, you know.
Of course I know; I listed but a scarce few in my previous post, so what are you trying to prove here? Any and all contact with animals can be potentially harmful as we have already both outlined. How does this significantly impact whether or not someone should have sex with an animal, given that most domesticated animals in first world countries now live under very good health conditions that control such diseases?
> When was the last time an animal purposely sought out a sexual relationship with a human, out of its natural habitat? Naturally, they don't. Therefore, that behaviour is technically "unnatural."
Well of course, given that the "natural" habitat of most humans these days is distinctly removed from the natural habitat of any wild animal. But there are plenty of cases of wild animals interacting with humans for the mere reason of socialisation, curiosity, and so forth. And some of those interactions have indeed been sexual. Just because such interaction is rare, does not make it unnatural, simply because if it *can* happen in nature, and does, it's inherently a natural occurence, just an infrequent one.
But that has nothing to do with domesticated animals now, does it? Those animals have been humanised. Their behaviour is far removed from the wild ancestors, and they behave markedly differently as such. That's just as unnatural, is it not? So once again, the question is how do you justify the dichotomy between one type of unnatural and another?
> So, nothing about consent (in a single dictionary's definition of murder). Not every case with consented murder is assisted suicide. Sometimes its for a snuff film. Anyway. You shouldn't use your own connotation of the word to define it. It makes you look stupid.
And, once again, your narrow-minded interpretation of definitions defines your own lack of thought on the subject. Isn't it inherent that in order for someone to murder someone else, there should be a lack of consent upon the victim's part? Isn't that just common sense? Of course your dictionary definition doesn't include it in the text, because most people would just accept that that is the case. And if you agree to doing a snuff film, and you are agreeing to having your life taken, isn't that, essentially, suicide? And given that the act is being undertaken by another, assisted suicide?
Religious tenets of a specific religion can be considered archaic if modern thought based in plain old common sense proves otherwise. Given religion is based in faith, which relies on *not* proving anything, I would think that, given proof of something being a normal, natural occurence and being accepted by modern common sense, that would be enough to render any religious argument against homosexuality, or other paraphilias, moot.
> This whole argument is mind-numbingly idiotic. It's trying to explain to someone that 1+1=2.
The only idiocy I'm seeing here is your inability to refute the central theme of my argument using effective examples. I'll try and make it as clear as clear can be for you, then:
Why is it that certain acts that are *more* detrimental to an animal's and a human's health are considered morally acceptable, while other activities (such as sex with an animal) that are not as detrimental to an animal's and a human's health are considered morally unnacceptable?
> there's nothing left but to call you a goat-banging ludicrous hippie.
Now now, that's being a bit rude, is it not? I only asked of you to stretch your mind a little given that I can see obvious deficits in your logic that stem seemingly from a preponderance of bias upon your part. I am biased myself, there is no doubt about that; I am biased towards detatched thinking that can look at a single situation from multiple perspectives, since it is part of my training in dealing with human psychology and animal behaviour. I haven't accused you of being anything that you haven't demonstrated in your own postings. How do you know I am a hippy? Or ludicrous? I certainly have never been around a goat in my entire life.
I quite enjoy challenging people and their beliefs. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, you can subscribe to them all you want. I just like to see how you justify them.
[deleted]
> So you're admitting that sex with an animal is a form of exploitation, yes? Okay, one down.
Indeed it is.
> I asked if YOU thought it was wrong based on YOUR beliefs. Which you did not answer.
I thought I had when I put the claim "I am not interested in...", in view of the child not being of physical maturity. But let's say she's 14-15 years old, physically mature, capable of reproduction. I'm still bound by the laws I live by in my country, and thus I would still not have sex with her for the sake of not wanting to break the law. But if I were to move into the jungle with her and lead an equally animalistic life with her, renouncing my current country of citizenship, then I would, unless it was plainly obvious to me that she would be incapable of supporting and raising the child, or birthing at a young age would be detrimental to her health. Reproductive maturity does not always correspond with the equal ability to carry a child to term and birth it safely. But then again even some mature adults cannot achieve this, so the issue really is moot. And, legally, if I had no country's laws to answer to, the only issue would be physical maturity, not legal maturity.
> "Common sense"? You can't be serious.
I am. Just because there's a religious reason not to commit a crime doesn't mean that reasoning without the crutch of religion can't be feasable. Reason and religion can be mutually exclusive.
> So you're saying nature is incapable of any abberations?
We define what abberation is. Nature just is. Therefore anything that happens in nature is inherently natural. We seek patterns, and depending on what occurs most frequently define it as natural. Of course, when you talk about physical defects, you could claim that this is an abberation of the standard development of a person from the standpoint of it not following what should happen given our understanding of genetics, conception, and so forth. But it happens regardless.
> How come I've never heard of a zoophiliac with a love for aphids? Or a blue whale?
Likely because you have not investigated the subject deeply or thoroughly. There are instances of people using ants, squid, stingrays, dolphins, elephants, and other animals for their pleasure. Certainly it's not as frequent as with more readily available domesticated animals, but it is documented.
> I was arguing that sex with an animal is detrimental, period. Which you've just said yourself.
Indeed, I did say "less detrimental" when questioning how we ascertain what things are moral and which ones are not. Which would suggest there is a degree of detriment in having a sexual relationship with an animal. But there is detriment of one sort or another in just about everything we do, and not just limited to our relationship with animals. We drink alcohol, skydive, drive cars, use cleaning solutions, take legal drugs, and eat foodstuffs to the detriment of our health. So just arguing that something is "detrimental, period" is essentially useless.
What you really need to question is the degree of detriment. You say that "forcefeeding an animal and then slaughtering it is slightly less detrimental than having sex with it". How do you justify it only being *slightly* more detrimental, when sex is a natural part of any animals life, but force feeding it isn't? I've already outlined how this could be so with an animal of immaturity, but what of an adult animal of breeding condition and appropriate size?
Just food for thought.
Good discussion -- I find the notion of sexual contact with a pet fairly revolting, but I agree that there's nothing inherently evil about, or even especially detrimental.
The pet and morality aside, I'm not sure if this sort of expression of open-mindedness sits well with me. I haven't seen the film, but the dog-blowjob sounds like either the product of a genuine attraction to dogs, or else sexual frustration (common in youth). If it's the former, I'd say seeya. If it's the latter, I'd have to wonder if there were any residual psychological artifacts lying in wait.
Also, thinking outside the box is great, but for it to be a real virtue it needs to be calculated. Committing random sexual acts that will psychologically haunt you for years to come is hardly the hallmark of calculation. I'm not sure I'd want to mix genes with this sort of girl.
PEOPLE. GET A GRIP. SEX WITH ANIMALS IS WRONG. PERIOD. IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG YOU ARE JUST FOOLING YOURSELF.
shareElsol,
Why are you even dancing with this moron? Nothing is more painful to read than a carefully crafted, well thought out argument that earns this as a response: "Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr der see you haav just proveduh my poynt! Derrr!"
It's making my head hurt.
I take it as a challenge. I'm not insulted by any particular response anyone makes on the issue, because all opinions are valid. I like to try and base my opinions as much as possible in logic, but all opinion has bias. It's impossible not to be biased, and bias is what drives a lot of people to argue an issue even in the face of tangible evidence contrary to what they believe.
Don't get a headache over it. It's just a discussion. A good one too, because there are a multitude of ways of approaching the topic.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
elsol-3, I do commend you for being one of the most open minded, intelligent, smart, wise people here in IMDB. I enjoyed reading all your smart comments and replies to people in this thread. My hope for this world ignites each time I encounter people like you. :)
shareSo, if your dog humps your leg, is he exploiting you??
share>Any type of sex with an animal is abuse for the simple reason that animals have no ability to consent. It's exploiting the relationship between the animal's owner and the animal. Whatever fantasy justifications you want to come up with, the simple fact is that animals cannot consent to sex with humans.
Ha-ha...so how are animals supposed to consent to *anything*?
I have never seen or heard of a pig or a fish or a cow saying "go ahead, kill me and eat me...oh, and my children, too, when they're big enough and fat enough for your tastes."
Nope, I don't remember that at all.
Additionally, if the dog did not like having his sexual organ orally manipulated by another living being, then I think he would have done something to get out of the situation (eg: run away, bite the girl, etc.). Given that he appeared to stay, I'd say he probably enjoyed it; ergo, he consented (in his own way) to having sex with a human.
Having seen the first ten minutes of the movie (Special sneak peek).
SHe was in college, and one night just sort of did it. NEarly wretched afterward and got rid of the dog as she couldn't deal with the guilt. THe movie isn't about that though.
It's about her trying to tell the man she loves (WHo also happens to be pushing the "We shouldn't have secrets" thing what happened.
It's about how she tells him and what happens afterward.
Since it's Goldthwait odds are the ending will be hilarious yet twisted.
honey, we're not talking about cruelty to animals or political issues. This is sex pure and simple between species. Our culture or anyone's else's that I'm aware of , just doesn't teach this or condone it. I'm American and living in Italy. I am certainly not even close to uptight, I consider myself open minded and adventurous, but I don't think about crossing that mixed species line.
Sex doesn' always have to be while you're in love, most definitely. I used to be a big believer in one night stands,( married now) and I pretty sure there ought to be at least 2 consenting adults with vocal cords and no tails involved. What would ever posess someone to want to go down on a dog. Being loving and caring and unselfish should possibly be with someone who will appreciate it to the fullest. There is nothing about this movie that makes me want to see it. I can watch Hallmark channel if I want to see drama about secrets and honesty!
I'm also curious about another thing. I'm a huge animal lover and would keep as many as humanly possible if I had the space. If we are enslaving these animals, horses, pigs, dogs cats, etc., and we all thought like this....what would the answer be? Let them all run free in the streets? I'm imagining thousands of animals running all over the place so they we don't enslave them. Hmmmm, no? Then should they all be put to sleep??? What is their purpose exactly anyway??? We all have a purpose here on earth, right? If not to ride, or keep company or to produce food, what exactly is their puropse?? The older people in nursing homes, terminally ill children, shut ins. I'd hate to be the one to tell them that we are treating animals cruelly and we have no business making them our pets.
shareYeah, I know this is was posted almost 2 years ago, but I was really disturbed by your comment equating medical testing, animal racing, etc. with spaying/neutering ("It's fine to voluntarily mutilate their bodies to prevent a 'puppy problem'"). Have you been to an animal shelter lately? Have you ever rescued a litter of puppies born to careless pet owners who apparently did not want to "voluntarily mutilate their bodies"? What, praytell, should society do with all the animals born to unaltered parents? As it is, no-kill rescue groups are overwhelmed with unwanted pets.
Neither of my dogs seemed overly concerned when they were neutered/spayed. Within a day or so, they were back to their old, bouncy selves. Am I a bad pet owner because I did't want my little girl dog getting knocked-up or my boy dog being a deadbeat baby daddy?
You comment is very ignorant. I am curious how you can justify such a view.
I think the whole point of the film was to pose the question: is complete honesty necessary in a relationship? And I think Bobcat created a really absurd and disgusting 'secret' for his main character, so it would be
understandable for her love interest to be at first repulsed and then curious (he wanted her to do the same with Steve). The point being, she learned her lesson by the end of the movie - that complete honesty, particularly about one's past, is not only ridiculous, it can destroy relationships.
Come join my Paul Giamatti group - movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/talkpaul/?yguid=5754742
"So, would you stay with a girl who told you she blew her dog? "
Hell no. If you've got bestiality in your past, keep it the hell to yourself. And if you're still doing it, seek professional help.
"So, would you stay with a girl who told you she blew her dog?"
Well apparently this couple was supposed to be REALLY close. Close enough to share your deepest darkest secrets with each other. Part of me totally understands the guy's point of view, and why he would have a problem with it. The other part of me thinks that leaving her because of that would be a real a-hole thing to do - especially under the circumstances that she was young, stupid, and curious.
I think personally, if a girl told me that, I'd excuse myself to go vomit. After I completely lost my lunch and tried to shake off the heebie geebies, I'd slap myself across the face, and tell myself to be a man. After talking and presumably laughing with her, that would hopefully be the end of it. So long as she did not harbor any more "curiosity", I think we'd be fine. Maybe just have fish tank to play it on the safe side huh?
Ew! *shakes off heebie geebies!*
ROFL - funniest thread of the year!
Can't wait til this film is out, some of the discussions will be funnier than the film :).
'I see a boundary, I eat a boundary' - Howard Moon
OMG. I'm going to throw up! HEll NO! HELL NO! HELL NO! I'm sick. UGH. Someone please give me a revolver.
"what becomes of us?".. the world decides, the world will always decideshare
that is absolutely disgusting
and if i were a guy i would drop her so fast...
beastiality *shudder*
[deleted]
Alright so maybe i'm missing something here....but i'm getting a double standard vibe. Van Wilder came out, in which, they masterbated the dog, then filled pastry's with the semen and fed those too the rival frat.....and all of the sudden pleasureing a dog is so gross people are actually calling for guns to clean their minds? Common something that was just good old fashioned fun when performed by the good ol' frat boys is now horrid and unimaginable when done by a female once....
shareI think everyone of you is missing the biggest point the movie was trying to make. The point is not wether or not beastiality is wrong. The goal of the movie was to illustrate the level of TRUST the couple had. If my partner trusted me so much as to allow me to have that secret and, trust me not to tell anyone else, I would never, ever leave them. I would feel a freedom that only comes from completely trusting another person to stand by your side no matter what may happen. If any of you ever find yourself in this position you had better thank your lucky stars that you now have someone so dedicated to you that they have put their lives in your hands. On the movies screen its all good and fun to joke about, but in real life, such secrets can destroy lives. Who among us has never done something out of pure curiosity and later regreted having made that decision? "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." and "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
shareTHAT WAS BRILLIANT. The first original point on this subject I have read. I never even thought about that. The above debate though......pure comedy gold.
share"but i'm getting a double standard vibe. Van Wilder came out, in which,"
Not sure why you're getting that vibe. You're the first person to bring up Van Wilder. I've never seen that movie, but I would be just as revolted by that scene as by the scene in this movie. Has nothing to do with the sex of the perpetrator.
I'm going to stay out of the ethical debate, because it's ludicrous. As long as it's legal to kill animals and eat them, raise them for skin, hunt them for sport, enslave them for work and companionship, etc., the argument is moot. Most dogs, I'm sure, would consider the occasional blow job a small price to pay in order to avoid life on the streets, in the pound, at the track, etc., although I doubt that their "thoughts" on the matter would even vaguely resemble our human thoughts.
I'm more interested in the general attitude toward the subject of the guys on this board. I hate to disappoint you, but the chick/dog thing may be more prevalent than most people suspect. I read Nancy Friday's "My Secret Garden" a few years back, which is essentially a collection of women's sexual fantasies submitted anonymously by real/everyday women. Friday (to her surprise and dismay, I seem to recall) ended up devoting an entire chapter to bestiality as she had received so many responses on the subject. It appears that for many girls, a dog's errant nose may have been their first sexual contact with another creature. Not a few of them let it go a bit farther than that, and years later, as grown women, still fantasize about the experience. If you think about it, it's unsurprising; nothing ruins a girl's life more quickly than a reputation for being easy, especially at a young age. The family pet provides a partner who won't tell stories in the locker room, who won't pressure his partner to go further than she likes, who won't judge her or find fault with her body.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a relatively common practice.
[deleted]
You may be somewhat disappointed to hear, then, that an experiment that is performed in just about every university microbiology course is the comparison of just how dirty a human being is compared to other creatues. Most commonly, the other creature is a dog.
The results are consistant:
A dog's perineum, prepuce, mouth and ears typically have bacterial loads that are two orders of magnitude *less* than that of the human counterpart (that's 100 times *less*). In the samples my own class took years ago when I was at university, the mean of 5 samples taken from the perineum of dogs cultured less bacteria than the mean of 5 human mouth samples. The results logically suggest it is far more hygenic to kiss a dog's backside than the average human mouth.
This can be attributed to the fact that their general hygeine is naturally better than ours, thanks to our degeneration of natural sanitation and dependence on external products to maintain us "sanitary". Most animals regularly lick themselves clean, and have for the most part antibacterial components in their saliva that are far superior to our own, with the exception of certain small breed dogs who, thanks to human breeding selection, have lost their ability to maintain oral health.
what do you mean by blew?
share