Is it wrong to offer to pay to play?

[StuffedCali]

I've been wondering for a long time, especially as more and more owners either vanish or outright refuse to share, is it wrong to offer to pay to play? Obviously we don't want to just reduce our animal companions to mere tools for sexual pleasure and that is in no way my intention. But, it would seem like it could be an appropriate thing to do as a non owner to compensate owners for the experience. It also, from my perspective, could be an incentive for more owners to share even if the player does not fit the gender or appearance preference of the owner.

What are your thoughts?

 

[KennelDad]

I've been wondering for a long time, especially as more and more owners either vanish or outright refuse to share, is it wrong to offer to pay to play? Obviously we don't want to just reduce our animal companions to mere tools for sexual pleasure and that is in no way my intention. But, it would seem like it could be an appropriate thing to do as a non owner to compensate owners for the experience. It also, from my perspective, could be an incentive for more owners to share even if the player does not fit the gender or appearance preference of the owner.

What are your thoughts?

While I think pay to play should be legal.

I'd have to say yes

 

[dartel]

YES! Plus it will get you banned here.

 

[Bloodwolf]

No. Ya bunch of parched opossums.

 

[StuffedCali]

YES! Plus it will get you banned here.

I wasn't necessarily saying on here. But if you got private chatting with an owner in private or via any of the many messaging apps

 

[Octavian]

The answer is YES, it's wrong.

 

[Bloodwolf]

The answer is YES, it's wrong.

View attachment 180267

Well damn. I change my answer. Miss read that

 

[Reconscope]

I hear prostitution...

I dont judge things if 2 parties are willing. However if the dog/owner dont agree with said individual its obviously their choice (to put it bluntly)

 

[StuffedCali]

I hear prostitution...

I dont judge things if 2 parties are willing. However if the dog/owner dont agree with said individual its obviously their choice (to put it bluntly)

Right, there has to be an agreement but moreso what I'm getting at is if you don't fit the bill physically for what said owner is looking for in a way where you could reciprocate the reward would cash offers not be an appropriate offer of course assuming the owner is willing to make the exchange.

To flip the perspective, is it wrong as the owner to accept cash when/if offered in place of sexual favor in the event of non attraction to the other party.

And for the record I have never paid or offered as of this moment in time, it's just something that's been discussed in private a few times.

 

[FoxandtheHounds]

Yes, it's wrong. For many reasons. I don't get what the pay for play allure is, why not just pay to give a critter a loving home?

 

[dartel]

"Can I fuck your dog?"

"No."

"What if I paid you?"

"FUCK NO YOU PIECE OF SHIT!"

 

[nekdoneco123]

of course it's wrong to pimp out your partner (regardless of species)... the real question is what kind of person thinks this even needs to be asked in the first place?

also, why does it always seem like simply becoming an owner oneself is not an option in this kind of threads? you're already pretty much offering money (don't tell me you wouldn't pm the shit out of anyone saying they might consider it), why not use that money to make a nice life for an animal?

 

[FloofyNewfie]

Most owners do not pimp out their animals. They are our mates, girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, and wives. They are not some sex object to be passed around. This topic is now closed.