You must log in or # to comment.
kash is into dogs, not MAGICAL BEASTS.
i thought this was referring to how police marry immigrants despite voting against their rights
Just because he’s called “beast” doesn’t mean he can’t consent. This is just furry.
Dogs aren’t hot. Consent with a furry beast, however…
Belle kinda hot
Belle didn’t mind a bit of rollplay to spice things up, but she was not impressed by Beast’s suggestion of how she carry out her investigation. That wasn’t standard issue equipment at all.
I’m turned on by authority so FBI Belle is kinda…
I’m just picturing her taking that knot like a champ.
I am ashamed that I understood what this means
She had no idea he was going to transform into a human – she was 100% ready for beast form.
shes into the wild side.
She wanted that Beast Cock
TO BE FAIR i don’t think any of the characters are supposed to know about sex. Not because they’re in a kids disney movie, but because they’re medieval peasants
They grew up in one room houses…
I know this so don’t worry. They are, however, perfect and innocent unicorns, as any good fantasy novel with dragons will tell you.
“Charlie close your eyes or forget going to see Wonka this weekend!”
Where do you think medieval peasants came from? Just sprouted from the ground?
The queen, obviously.
Conquest of Elysium hive dwarves type concept.
Literally
I have a feeling that medieval peasants had a fairly good grasp of sex, seeing how they raised animals and all. They knew.
Plus wtf else were they supposed to do
They also didn’t think birds had sex, so I don’t put much stock in making the connection between humans and other animals. They probably didn’t even see people as animals
Speaking monolithically
Animals and people are different !
In terms of what goes where and with what result, nah, not really.
Not really. We function pretty much the same.
(Dam was really looking forward to taking that doggy dick out for a spin)
Ohhh, so THIS was the “consensual besteality” 'ol googly-eyes Patel was referring to…
I am out of the loop here, but somehow not surprised.
The FBI quietly issued guidance this past spring lifting a categorical hiring ban on applicants who had previously engaged in prostitution, and said that it would instead consider the context of the behaviour in at least some cases. The bureau made a similar change regarding bestiality.
"We did not want to punish victims of bestiality, victims who were trafficked. We did not want to make it an automatic disqualification for the FBI to consider you,” Patel said.
If thay was what they meant they should have written about ‘not excluding victims of’ instead of ‘consider the context’.
Thank you for the link!
I’m skeptical about the phrasing “engaged in prostitution”, I think the beastiality bit is a smokescreen to distract from that part. I don’t think the fbi has had to turn down a lot of former hookers, I think they’ve had to turn down lot of men who have “engaged with prostitutes” from the other end of the transaction. They are removing this restriction so they can hire more sexual predators.
(inb4 “not all men who hire prostitutes are sexual predators”. I know. I’m a sex worker. The ones Donald Trump and Kash Patel want to hire are going to be sexual predators).
Legitimately thanks for that. That had stood out to me as “one of these things is not like the others” but my mind only went to sex workers, I did not think at all about men who bought prostitutes.
Uhh…who exactly are the “victims” in a bestiality incident? 🤨
The israeli iof used dogs to rape palestinians.
I am willing to put money down that similar things happened on Epstein island, his texas (I think it was texas) ranch, and in a certain florida golf club
Often prostitutes who are only doing it to survive or women who are being trafficked.
Those women are not applying to be in the FBI though, which is why I doubt that is who Patel is claiming are being kept from becoming agents.
If that was actually the intent they could have avoided all the drama by adding broader language to the entire document allowing exceptions on a case by case basis for prohibited behaviors which occurred while the applicant was a victim of trafficking and coercion. This sounds a lot more like an excuse made after the fact to defend an indefensible decision.
I really hope someone in congress follows up on this and demands to know how many agents were hired with these behaviors on their record, and of those how many had been identified as victims of trafficking. Make them go on record with it.
Well yeah. Just because you were abused as a pup, does not mean you can’t be a police dog. What justice is that?
Alternative interpretation:
This entire incident was a misguided, half-drunk attempt to make the FBI inclusive and welcoming for furries.
they looked at their IT department and decided they should have more of those kind of people
Exactly, they were like, “shit all the people who know how to actually make computers work hate our fucking guts, how do we seem more friendly to them?”
This feels like misdirection away from something else going on, but there’s so many dumpster fires all going on at the same time, it’s hard to say.
Just fyi we hunt zooaphiles
Oh I know, but try to put yourself in the mindset of someone who is prevalent to making snap judgments based on aesthetics, who has never actually interacted with any furries, looking at the furry community from the outside.
There’s that rabid furry hate. Lol
?
Maybe include that elon still wants to make catgirls but they do want them to have human rights so lable them as animals but then you have to worry about beastiality
“Human” catgirls would still be women and they’re already attacking women’s rights as it is. They would first need to overturn Bush II’s ban on human-animal hybrids that promised better organ transplants.
sure, but nekopara style catgirls are just large hairless intelligent cats with all the rights of a cat.
They wanted beast cock.
All jokes aside, this was probably necessary in order for Patel to be employed.
