>>211584835I don't think Adam is a dogfucker, but I've listened to all of his arguments and his reasoning (not just that one chain of comments often posted in these threads), and it's genuinely not hard to imagine that he has sucked off a dog with the full belief that it was fine because the dog didn't resist. It seems this way because his argument has a bizarre and suspicious suggestion that apparently it's just a trusim that fucking an animal would be pleasurable as a given fact just as eating them is, which betrays what he thinks, and without being prompted and as if guilty he always clarifies he would never penetrate an animal, he would only I-I mean theoretically he I-I mean theoretically a theoretical person would only suck them off. That's how he comes off.