Why do we love ugly animals?
Ugly dogs and other unattractive pets are far from aesthetically pleasing, yet they still tug on our heart strings. What's going on?
www.bbc.com
Blackpill The dogpill is bluepilled until there is no objective data and scientific research to support it.
www.bbc.com
Irrelevant, brocel.Why do we love ugly animals?
Ugly dogs and other unattractive pets are far from aesthetically pleasing, yet they still tug on our heart strings. What's going on?
Is that even a proper sentence?
Anyways, a heterosexual man is attracted to women and if a tranny can successfully trick him into believing he's a woman then of course the guy will be attracted due to his heterosexuality, it's not rocket science.
I have searched well, I read the whole article and nowhere does it give a definition of what a "pill" is and what requirements something has to meet to be a "pill".So you haven't searched well.
Pill jargon
The pill jargon are all the terms with "pill" in them that are widely used in the incelosphere, manosphere and in other non-mainstream parts of the internet culture...incels.wiki
there is no contradiction
dogpill is merely a fact.
blackpill includes the dogpill and that fact.
It makes rhetoric sense. The dogpill is just another way to demonstrate that inkwells' SMV is effectively zero, for those who haven't realized it yet.
It also illustrates the fact that foids are sexually degenerate.
Oh good God.
Of course the number of women actually fucking dogs is statistically vanishingly small, that has never been in dispute.
Nobody I've seenon here has seriously claimed that it's commonplace and large numbers of women are choosing dog sex instead of their looksmatch.
That ANY number of women would have PIV intercourse with a dog, while a legion of incel-tear men rot and can't even get one match on tinder, it's just a small but sobering appendix to the overall blackpilled understanding of how ridiculously undervalued average and below men are, in an 80/20 world where men need to be Chad to have any hope at all.
THAT'S the dogpill.
It doesn't require 7 pages of probability calculations.
Of course the number of women actually fucking dogs is statistically vanishingly small, that has never been in dispute.
Nobody I've seenon here has seriously claimed that it's commonplace and large numbers of women are choosing dog sex instead of their looksmatch.
That ANY number of women would have PIV intercourse with a dog, while a legion of incel-tear men rot and can't even get one match on tinder, it's just a small but sobering appendix to the overall blackpilled understanding of how ridiculously undervalued average and below men are, in an 80/20 world where men need to be Chad to have any hope at all.
THAT'S the dogpill.
It doesn't require 7 pages of probability calculations.
Last edited:
"Tricked."
For this reason, along this line, the heterosexual will continue to be attracted to what is seen as "feminine", such as false breasts, and how this object can be used for sexual satisfaction, according to, again, your line of argument, that would not make him gay.
I don't understand what you're blabbering but you clearly don't understand a single word from my line of argument ..."Tricked."
No he won't continue to be attracted because a cock/neovagina is not feminine and a big turnoff for heterosexual men.
Edit: I guess I now understand what you're trying to say, you're trying to say "he was attracted to the tranny tits before he knew it was a tranny, so he keeps being attracted to the tranny tits even after he knows it's a tranny" ... that thought is highly autistic and far from the truth.
The tranny being a tranny, not being a biological female and having a penis / neovagina instantly kills all attraction, because a heterosexual man is attracted to females, not trannies.
You're a dumb autists who does mind gymnastics around simple truths, it's bothersome to talk to you because your strings of thought are so dumb and twisted, lol.
Last edited:
Not entirely. It's clear that our view of attractiveness among other humans is different to our view of other animals.
Pills are defined based on the reality-false dichotomy. As you have said, it is a dichotomy between reality and falsehood. Through this dichotomy, the definition of the rest of the blackpills is created by contrast.
1. As demonstrated before, there are logical contradictions between the blackpill and the dogpill.
2. That it is a fact does not make it a blackpill because it does not enter the definition of it. If you want to define pill as "something that is itself," then the debate would be over and we would agree.
3. The blackpill does not include the dogpill because, as I repeat for the third time, the purpose of the blackpill as opposed to the redpill and in contrast to the bluepill, they enter into a definite contradiction.
Just because we find a dog cute doesn't make them sexually attractive, which is what the article suggests.
It contradicts itself. A neovagina in your line of absolute femininity and masculinity will be attractive regardless of the knowledge of its falsehood, because it is the symbol, not rationality, that dominates the attractive.
That is why we say that personality is an extension of lookism and not the lookism of personality.
We can agree on this.
Foids don't need to have a sexual attraction towards a dog. No sexual attraction is better than the feeling of disgust.
It is your line of argument in the absolute masculine-feminine dichotomy.
Tired of your bluepilled niggerbabble.
Dogpill is blackpill, always has been, always will be.
The contradictions are only in your autistic brain, not in reality.
Bullshit niggerbabble, a neovagina isn't even the same thing as a real vagina, but you're treating it as the same in your argument, which makes it completely useless.
I'm done here, keep babbling bluepilled nonsense, overcomplicating simple things, I'm tired of this kind of mental gymnastic bullshit, on a proper blackpilled forum your ass would've been permabanned already, but this brainrot forum is just a sunken ship and the bluepilled trannies are flooding in.
Holy fuckOpen main menu
Search
Dogpill
Page Discussion
The dogpill is a blackpilled theory that suggests that human females prefer sex with dogs or other Canids over sex with incels. Some more extreme dogpillers claim that women would prefer sex with a dog over even human chads.
In-depth explanation
Edit
The dogpill is a term coined by incels which refers to the theory that suggests the existence of a sizeable demographic of women who prefer sex with male dogs over male humans. While the term is oftentimes used ironically, many have argued that there's a surprising amount of merit behind the claim. Those who subscribe to the idea refer to themselves as being "dogpilled" and cite how commonplace the sight of a single woman with a male dog tends to be along with the prevalence of recurring themes in popular culture and media promoting the bond between a woman and "man's best friend" (or, perhaps more accurately, "woman's best friend"[1]). While other animal-oriented stereotypes of single women such as the crazy cat lady exist, they serve merely as insults by means of projecting loneliness, whereas the dogpill implies a deeper and more serious look into the subject of women's sexuality, providing an explanation for how and why so many single women seemingly find non-human companions preferable to having a human partner.
Evidence
Edit
The dog equivalent of a Chad is nicknamed Buster.
Even smaller breeds may dickmog you.
Fantasies
Edit
The most persuasive evidence for the dogpill comes from online forums. There are, in fact, more forums with women fantasizing about sex with dogs[2] than there are forums dedicated to women lusting after male virgins. It's not out of the question to suggest that no forum of the latter kind exists. This is supported by the fact that women report finding male virgins sexually less attractive than partnered men.[3]
There is also a sizeable underground cottage industry of zoophilic pornography involving films depicting female actresses engaging in sexual activities with male dogs (including amateur films) [4] The most famous actress who starred in one of these films was Linda Lovelace, known for her participation in the infamous 1970s pornographic film "Deep Throat." She claimed to have been coerced at gunpoint while filming her pornographic movies. This is despite the possession, distribution, and production of such materials being illegal in many jurisdictions. Related to this, a 2011 Italian study on the pornography viewing habits of young adults documented that 16.5% of female pornography consumers reported that they had recently watched pornography involving sex with animals. This corresponded to roughly 10% of the female sample in total, who reported "currently" watching bestiality pornography.[5]
In 1973, author Nancy Friday published a famous book on female sexuality titled "My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies" that luridly detailed women's deepest sexual fantasies. The book has been dubbed the "innocent dawning of what later became known as the sex-positive feminist movement".[6] The book was infamous for including several highly graphic female fantasies that pertained to the practice of bestiality, "primarily with dogs."
Dickpill
Edit
Many breeds of dogs have a much larger penis than an average human male,[7][8] thus making the dogpill concomitant with the dickpill. This may also explain the large worldwide market for canine-inspired dildos. Bad Dragon, one of the most popular retailers selling such products,[9] is the 18,622nd most popular site in the United States and 33,328th most popular website worldwide in terms of online traffic.[10] Although most retailers covertly market their animalistic dildos as "fantasy sex toys" to appeal to a wider demographic (and potentially avoid suspicion), the difference between fantasy and reality is up for debate in some cases, especially when certain dildos being sold appear to be lifelike replicas of real dog penises. More specifically, dog dildos are usually modeled after great Danes, German shepherds, and Alaskan malamutes, all three of which are breeds that are known for having the largest penises in the domesticated dog family.[11][12] Corroborating this, studies have documented that women gain sexual gratification from inserting all kinds of objects - sometimes as large as soda cans - into their bodies.[13] It is not out of the ordinary for women to experiment with a wide variety of non-humanoid objects, hence why animalistic sex toys are commonplace.
Additionally, data from Google Trends suggests that there is a roughly equivalent search volume for 'dog dildo' as there is for 'realistic dildo'[14] from 2004 to the present. Furthermore, one of the related queries displayed by Google when searching for 'dog dildo' is 'large dog breeds'. This suggests a potential correlation between people who may be searching for canine dildos and those who might be interested in 'practicing for the real thing'.
Arousal
Edit
More evidence for the dogpill may be that women's genitals are naturally stimulated by zoophilic pornography, whereas men's genitals are not. Meredith Chivers, PhD., an assistant professor of psychology at Queens University in Kingston, conducted an experiment proving that women were aroused by all images of animal coupling they were exposed to: including e.g., Bonobos.[15] Though, it has been argued that this may represent an evolutionary adaption for women to produce vaginal secretions readily in response to sexual stimuli, to prevent tissue damage from coerced sex, etc.
As for male dogs, their arousal is unaffected by heat cycles and is only hindered by social anxiety or frightening stimuli. It is for this reason that professional dog breeders ensure the males are sheltered from such distractions. Otherwise, they are unlikely to develop an erection or show interest around female dogs.[16] However, when considering the casual lifestyle of many women who own male dogs, this may be the desired result, as it ensures a pattern of behavior is instilled in the dog's mind to associate all instincts of loyalty and libido with the female owner and no one else.
Psychological Theories for Dogpilling
Edit
MemeAnalysis once made a video[17] proclaiming that slime toys and sponges are made to replace absence of tactile play and erotic reality in the digitized, post-modern era (with slime representing wetness and sponges representing breasts). In the same vein, it could be said that a large portion of women have missed out on actual intimacy and are compensating with sex toys and animals. Perhaps even the "maggotpill" (see "BlowFly Girl"[18]) could be cited as an extreme example. Slavoj Zizek gave similar ideas in The Desert of the Real[19] that ultimately, post-modernism itself (specifically with regards to feminists' detachment from men) will make people commit acts of controlled self-harm to return to pre-modern times, making bestiality seem more palatable. To demonstrate the validity of these claims, one can check the historical rate of sexual proactiveness and sexual access of males compared to the present and the correlation between bestiality, other forms of sexual deviancy, and their ties to either socio-economic status or adverse childhood events.
Surveys
Edit
Alfred Kinsey, a well-known human sexuality researcher, conducted a survey in the 1950s that examined the prevalence of bestiality. It was found that 3.6% of adult females sampled confessed to having engaged in such sexual acts after their adolescent period.[20] The 50s were more socially conservative, and thus an even higher figure may be expected in the contemporary, sexually liberated west. Dog ownership has also increased since the 50s.[21] Moreover, self-reported surveys attempting to determine the prevalence of zoophilic sexual activities most likely suffer from a severe bias in that respondents underreport such deviant sexual behavior.
A subsequent study of "highly intelligent women" conducted in 1974 by psychologist Manfred F. DeMartino found that 7% of the sample admitted to having engaged in various forms of sexual activity with animals, primarily with dogs.[22] The author concluded that due to the figure being higher than in the previous study by Kinsey et al. (1953), more intelligent women may be more prone to engaging in such acts This is presumably due to how openness to new experiences correlates with IQ.
WSU research showed that across 144 cultures, dogs that interacted with women were 220% more likely to be treated like people, with women more likely to have a dog "sleeping alongside them" than men.[23] further challenges the notion of dogs being "man's best friend" among younger generations
Miletski (2002) reported that 87% of males and 100% of females who reported any sexual contacts with animals reported dogs as their non-human sexual partner. Further, both Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005) and Williams and Weinberg (2003) reported dogs as the most common recurring animals.[24] This may, in part, be explained by the fact that most other pet animals' sexual organs are incompatible in dimensions and how dogs engage in mounting behavior more often than other pets.
Although most studies regarding the subject have found that men admit to engaging in zoophilic acts more often than women,[25] It is not unheard of for women to be more prone to lie about their sexual behavior and underreport numbers of past sexual partners.[26] In fact, throughout human history and across cultures, one observes the tendency for women's sexual behavior to be heavily controlled to ensure their paternity, so women are likely still under social pressures encouraging chastity and obedience in women which may cause such a bias. By admitting to deviant sexuality, women also risk being subject to fierce gossip by other women.[27] Moreover, it can be argued that men frequently perform zoophilic acts out of desperation (because of males having much higher libido). Conversely, due to women's lower libido on average as compared to men and their typical ease of finding a willing sexual partner, it can be argued that women perform these acts more often solely due to zoophilic preferences.
Even though these figures might sound low, people have, on average, 600 acquaintances,[28] meaning it is quite possible that everyone has encountered at least one woman who has had sexual intercourse with a dog. Since only 44% of U.S. citizens own a dog,[29] the prevalence of such sex acts is likely around twice as high among dog owners.
Secret language
Edit
Many zoophiles use coded language to describe sexual acts with dogs. For example, "K9" is oftentimes used as shorthand for when women copulate with male dogs. Various double entendres along the lines of "69" or "doggystyle" as covert references to bestiality are commonplace on zoophile websites.
More specifically, descriptions such as "knotting" or "taking the knot" (when said of a woman) may be used to signify penetrative sex with a male dog, as the canine penis features the bulbus glandis (nicknamed the "knot") at its base, which swells upon arousal and inflates to full size during ejaculation, causing it to become locked (or "tied") inside its recipient for an extended period of time to ensure the proper deposition of semen into the female during copulation. According to many self-proclaimed female zoophiles, this is said to provide a very pleasurable sensation when fully inserted into the vagina, as it rests firmly against the woman's g-spot, leading to intense orgasms. Many people have also described becoming aroused by merely reading about such accounts, perhaps adding more validity to its apparent prevalence in casual language online. Homonym-related puns such as "knotty" instead of "naughty" or "knot" instead of "not" are surprisingly commonplace in certain contexts, although they usually derive from members of the furry fandom making sex jokes about anthropomorphic canine characters rather than zoophiles describing bestiality.
Some dogpill theorists have also speculated that certain women who decorate themselves with tattoos depicting dog paw prints may be using it as a secret code to communicate openness toward bestiality to fellow zoophiles (similar to the "ace of spades" brand used by coalburners.) If one is perceptive, one can see that they often have such tattoos near the waist, which is where a male dog's forepaws would latch on and grip during sexual intercourse. However, the validity of this hypothesis is still up for debate.
Origin
Edit
Pre-modernity
Edit
It could be argued that the first dogpill theorist was the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote at length in his famous "histories" about the supposed penchant of Pharaonic Egyptian women for engaging in acts of bestiality with a menagerie of animals, including dogs. The Qing dynasty era Chinese author Pu Songling wrote a book about the subject, with the English translation of the title of the book being "The Fornicating Dog". In the work, a traveling businessman is cuckolded and (eventually) murdered by the family dog. After word of the wife's scandalous relationship with the animal spreads, she and the dog are sentenced to death by lingchi (slow slicing, or the infamous 'death by a thousand cuts'), but not before the couple is forced to copulate in public.[30]
Modern era to current age
Edit
Otto Weininger, in his opus "Sex and Character" claimed that zoophilia in women was explained by them being existentially closer to animals than men are, stating: "As a matter of fact, women are sisters of the flowers, and are in close relationship with the animals. Many of their sexual perversities and affections for animals indicate this."
The idea of the "dogpill" was popularised in the incelosphere by famous hapa troll and author of the redpill comics, Eurasian Tiger, who promoted the concept on sluthate.com and r/incels.
A Hollywood film has been produced on the subject.[31]
The concept has leaked into the popular consciousness in recent years. It is difficult to determine how or why the dogpill grew in notoriety outside of the incelosphere, but the popularity of the concept on semi-fringe internet spaces that often influence mainstream internet culture, such as 4chan, is likely one of the primary reasons. The prominent 'breadtuber', VaushV, wrote an essay on the topic.[32]
Dogpill gallery
White Girls Fuck Dogs
Timeline
External links
See also
References
Categories:
Last edited 3 days ago by Altmark22
Incel Wiki
Nope.
P: Physical attractiveness is the most critical factor in men's dating success.
M: Money, status, and social skills are secondary factors in men's dating success.
G: Men's dating and life outcomes rely on genetically determined traits.
S: Men's dating issues require systematic solutions.
R: Redpill philosophy promotes self-improvement and dating tricks as the solution.
I: Incels and low-status men's attitudes are to blame for their lack of mating success.
D: Women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels.
C: Women prefer sex with dogs over sex with human chads.
Now, let's analyze the contradictions:
Paragraph 1 (Blackpill Philosophy):
- P ∧ ¬M ∧ ¬G ∧ S
- The paragraph argues that physical attractiveness is critical (P), while money, status, and social skills are of secondary importance (¬M). It also claims that men's dating and life outcomes rely on genetically determined traits (¬G) and that systematic solutions are required for men's dating issues (S).
Paragraph 2 (Dogpill Theory):
- D ∧ C
- The paragraph suggests that women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels (D). Some extreme dogpillers claim that women would prefer sex with a dog over even human chads (C).
Contradictions:
- P ∧ D (Physical attractiveness is critical in men's dating success vs. Women prefer sex with dogs over incels)
- M ∨ G ∨ ¬S ∧ ¬R ∨ I (Money, status, and social skills are secondary vs. Redpill philosophy promotes self-improvement and blames incels and low-status men's attitudes)
- ¬G ∨ C (Genetically determined traits influence men's dating outcomes vs. Women prefer sex with dogs over human chads)
These contradictions highlight the opposing views between the blackpill and the dogpill.
Cope.
I already told you that you should spare us with that first semester computer science bullshit that you aren't even using correctly.
The whole thing is for the bin because these logical connectives only work with absolutes, booleans, not with subjective phrases you dumb nigger.
You also have a mistake in it
D: Women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels.
You're saying ALL WOMEN prefer sex with dogs over sex with incels here, but that's false. The dogpill doesn't even claim that.
So all your niggerbabble is for the BIN.
There is nothing subjective in definitions taken as a point of reference, you fool. This is the elementary of propositional logic. The fact that you consider these definitions established by consensus as subjective makes your own definition of blackpill subjective because you do not take a frame of reference.
This is how the dogpill framework is defined on the Wiki, you dumbass with 0 READING skills. https://incels.wiki/w/Dogpill
So in absolute terms and taking these definitions as a frame of reference, the blackpill contradicts the dogpill and both contradict each other by definition while you create a subjective definition of the blackpill.
Then the wiki is inaccurate and should be corrected.
I can't remember a single person who actually believed that EVERY woman prefers dogs over incels.
If it is incorrect, then we will not take it as a frame of reference. To what would make this debate a concluded debate.
Thanks for coming in.
Just because a small part is incorrect it can still be taken as frame of reference
Agreed upon.
Dogpill is undeniable. It's a brutal pill to swallow as it almost seems unreal. That animals who can't talk, who can't do anything but exist mog you. The one thing all your ancestors have gotten you can't get but a fucking dog gets is brutal.
There are videos on the internet of women having sex with dogs but not sub4 men. it's evidence in my book
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
