I say she was screwed. If they ate her, they would have showed it. After all they showed the monster girl eating the religious freak's nipple in the first part. But there is no way they could get away with showing beastiality in any way, so they didn't even try.
shareI don't think so. He kind of starved the dogs. That kind of screaming does not come from getting banged by dogs. After watching an episode of bestiality from Nip/Tuck and knowing a few people who are into that, if you aren't careful dogs will actually EAT you even if not starved, especially a woman's nether regions. And he poured food on her privates.
Food is not necessary to get a dog to do anything, especially to hump someone. I worked as a vet tech and had a 200 pound rottweiler try to hump me! All I did was bend over to pick up his leash. No food involved. Trust me, they ate her.
*sorry I didn't realize my post was missing sentences. My baby often touches the keyboard or mouse and whole sentences disappear! I've edited it to make sense lol.
IF I HAD BALLS, THEY'D BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
http://www.facebook.com/keolakauilani
"I worked as a vet tech and had a 200 pound rottweiler try to hump me! Trust me, they ate her."
Second best comment ever!
LOL, he was an uncut male and was in for testing to see if his sperm was viable. Ever see a veterinarian jerk off a rott? OMG I almost died from trying not to laugh.
IF I HAD BALLS, THEY'D BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
http://www.facebook.com/keolakauilani
I don't know. Have you ever put wet food in a dog's bowl and instead of eating the food, the dog started humping the bowl? I don't think it will be any different if you pour wet food all over someone's body.
No really, while it is true that dogs can hump a human being, I don't know if you could really train them to do it when you want them to.
SPOILER!!
I got the impression they ate her.
ripping and tearing her twat,
He poured a BOILING! pot of stew on her, for mercys sake
The aroma of stew got the dogs all wild and ravenous
the director made sure you could see the steam of the stew from the kicten to him pouring.
maybe after...maybe. but the point I got from the gruesome screams and everything, They were eating her out.
"Sometimes you have to pee in the sink" - Bukowski
I think they were chowing down - even the guy looked pretty nauseated at the fate he had caused her. That was as bad as seeing the actual event would have been (which I am glad we didn't see).
"Remember, you have to make it home to get paid" (The Dogs of War)
My initial guess was that Claire was just screaming in fear and horror, but that Pete didn't want to physically harm her. However as another poster mentioned, he did pour *boiling* stew on her which must have burned her badly, so it's quite possible that he did actually intend the dogs to eat her alive. Shame we didn't get to see even a glimpse of it – after all this is supposed to be a horror anthology.
I wonder if by any chance the director clarifies the ending in the audio commentary of the DVD. Has anyone listened to it?
That whole story, it was talked about how she was terrified of dogs. Flat out terrified. So a woman, tied face down, ass raised on a bed, with several big dogs in the room would invoke her to scream in terror, especially when they got up on the bed. You seem to forget that.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I find it amusing that no one on the board gets it exactly. The segment was just called Bitch because she was a bitch. It was called Bitch because he was a bitch and he showed her what it is like to be a bitch. She wants to be bitchy, let her find out what it feels like to be a bitch and be raped by mail dogs.
share