Please Signup or Login
    to see the movie


    You need to login in order to see the movie

    Man And Sheep


    Signup for a FREE Account Now   or   Login to GayBeast.com

    A great find, whoever found this and posted it here. While quality is a bit lacking due to being filmed off a television screen with a camera, the video is nonetheless high-quality sheep fuck, with a nice ewe laid out on her side, getting pounded by a considerably large man, his large dick sliding quite well into her tight ewe pussy. The action starts off a tad bit slow, but he soon picks up the pace, and it is quite obvious that the sheep is enjoying every second of it. No real audio to speak of, but definitely worth the watch.

    Uploaded by TheKurgen · Rating: 4.0 (271 votes) · 111306 views


    wonderful movie nice ending

    bitchygirl5, posted


    georg12, posted

    Good vid.

    Guga01, posted

    nice vid taking time to get the feel of how tight that pussy is on that thick dick..but once inside showing her that you can ram it just as good and fill it.

    castingrod, posted

    gosh no offense but learn how to keep your dick in

    wetzardkeeper, posted

    I liked it I liked it where he showed when he came in the sheep

    tinkerintom2, posted


    wu814739465, posted

    nice cock

    playingalone, posted

    mm her pussy loks very tight! love the cum running out! love to be next!

    crewmen, posted

    niiceee brroo... gud jobb! :)

    jasonia, posted

    It looks like the animal was under something,It aint moving at all,also ,you can`t tell what kind of animal it is ,a dog,or sheep,or whatever

    duffy2434, posted

    male here with female dogs loves sharing webcam with women ,if interested add me seamen_of_d_c@hotmail.com

    rolrex, posted

    that wasnt even a sheep. He copied that off of man creampies donkey, hell. I just watched that one. what looser. And yah dont know ur animals! If he would have said me fucking a dog you would believe that to. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    worth69, posted

    verrrry nice and he cream pie's her too...

    oldcarnut308, posted

    more monster cocks need to be fucking the sheep and cows big time

    nomind57, posted


    ynnhoj, posted


    ketanthacker72, posted


    ketanthacker72, posted

    though this is an awesome video. It is video of a video, thus not as clear as it should be. the man was young and well built with a very healthy cock, though I think the animal was sedated. Nevertheless, it was nice to see the cum drip out of the cunt.

    TC7, posted

    its so fucking hot i love watching sheep get banged

    katey123, posted

    good vid i would love to try a sheep their pussys look so good

    billyjack12324, posted

    That was some good stuff

    fuckthemare, posted

    love watching the come spilling out at the end

    sevendogs, posted

    I like a close-up picture of where the shaft is going to go.

    74539, posted

    zoek iemand in belgie die dit doet en zou dit wel eens samen willen uitproberen mail mij op kangeroe60@hotmail.com aub groetjes

    kangeroe, posted


    ketankumar, posted


    ketankumar, posted


    ketankumar, posted

    nice shot of his cock deep inside. nice cock i take that !!!

    mrmikemoe, posted

    this is awesome, I've cummed to this so many times now, that pussy looks so soft and warm

    portgas, posted

    Great one; had a few when growing up on the farm but sows always cooperated better.

    sciotovalleyguy, posted

    nice i wish i had one ;]

    sheeplover1980, posted

    rape me c2c fuk your dog on cam for young fem im horny always cam 2 cam nastygirlslut88@yahoo.com

    beastgirlsex, posted

    the guy is so sexy! his dick is beautiful!

    konjipsitipovi, posted

    a juicy dorper ewe the best

    barnboy1966, posted

    i want fuck sheep

    ketankumar, posted

    cum in her pussy. Closeup shot will make it better.

    abs3571, posted


    ketankumar, posted

    Much like the same hobby, the friend? ET8605@163.COM hair, make a friend

    lingjiale, posted

    I love fucking sheep, their pussy feels like a womans pussy only tighter and hotter.

    samuelmark1, posted

    is it dead?

    assmaster200001, posted

    This movie gave me a hard on reverepoz@yahoo.com

    philipj, posted

    omg i love it i want to fuck sheep to now , contact to me im french guy

    rimkoscar, posted

    i want fuck this sheep

    raulbike, posted

    im in canton ohio anyone willing to let me try a horse or mare or cow of theirs :D :) >:) >:D !!!! email- bigcaboom1@yahoo.com-, jabilesblack@yahoo.c-om, jabilesblack1@yahoo.-com skype- jabilesblack steam- jabilesblack contact me in any way possible if you need to talk ill give my cell to u in messge

    bigcaboom1, posted

    diese geile Votze drück heftig dagegen, muss echt geil sein dagegen zu drücken, hab grad einen Steifen Schwanz beim ansehen.

    klettke, posted

    lovely,like to see the cum from pussy,very good

    goodboyk9, posted

    Wow that pussy looks hot and tight.great cumshot at the end.Excited me the way he tapped her hump and played with her swollen pussy lips after he had his good hot his fuck.

    billysgoat, posted

    needs to keep dick in pussy

    djs109, posted

    excellent, i loved it

    elpezal, posted

    Very nice vid :)

    k9horse69, posted

    nice pussy looks hot

    rocketloads, posted

    nice clip, enjoyed the cum drip at the end.

    luvembig, posted

    Poor quality video it is playing on TV.

    xbgold, posted

    contacto amiguitos

    quiros, posted

    contacto amiguitos

    quiros, posted

    I agree the guy does have a nice ass and cock lucky sheep hell I would love to do a train

    Blowhandjob, posted

    ah memories, loved a young ewe

    diggerxii, posted

    big dick guy work that hard dick

    boytoyk9, posted

    my cock looks like that.... want me???

    anguis, posted

    who wants to fuk me like tat 708-8561915

    baby12, posted

    dang that guy has a great cock and a beautiful butt and legs. id baaaa for him

    blackinwhite50, posted

    Awesome clip! Super hot!! Nice cock, YUM!! :-)

    Sassy4Animals, posted

    i wanna have a sheep...

    ReinerUnfug, posted

    jo meg baszta

    tuta, posted

    Although this movie is filmed from a television is still is quite good. We have the substantial cock of the male entering the ewe's tight and warm pussy and as the cock stiffens more with each thrust the rhythm picks up. You can see the man's balls tighten and the thrusts become more forceful as he nears his climax. Enjoying himself his cock lingers a few moments inside her before he drags the length of his cock from the ewe's pussy and his cum spills out onto the rim of her pussy. Very erotic. Sound would have added to the excitement of his cumming inside her.

    oldermale999, posted

    freaking sweet ass ewe i would eat that shit I cant wait to get my own so I can fuck her everyday of the year until she bleeds and cums on my dick and eats it. I will pour lube all over her ass and pussy just to make it a sloppy mess to aid in the powning of that pussy. I want to get a mini horse in on the action in a three way. the way that she just takes it like a champ makes me cum twice as hard because you know she wants it so bad.

    gorillacock, posted

    BACKGROUND This article is written in the form of a literature review for the journal Sportscience. A few of the requirements for form and content are unique to Sportscience, but most are common to all good scientific journals. You can therefore use this article to help you write a review for any journal. You can also use this article to structure a literature review for a thesis, but check with your supervisor for any special requirements. This article exists in slightly modified form as a template for a Sportscience review article. If you intend to submit a review to Sportscience, you should download the template from the Information for Authors page at the Sportscience site. Whether you are writing a review for Sportscience, another journal, or a thesis, you should read my guidelines on scientific writing (Hopkins, 1999a). Here are the main points from that article: Avoid technical terms. Avoid abbreviations. Use simple sentences. Avoid common errors of punctuation and grammar. Use the first person (I, we) rather than the passive voice. Link your ideas into a sensible sequence without repetitions or discontinuities. Get feedback on your article from colleagues. In this Background section, make the topic interesting by explaining it in plain language and by relating it to actual or potential practical applications. Explain any scientific principles underlying the topic. Define and justify the scope of the review: why you are limiting it to certain sports, why you are including studies of non-athletes and non-human species, and so on. LITERATURE In this short section you should list how many of each kind of publication you summarized (for example, 31 original investigations, one monograph, five reviews, four popular articles, one manuscript), and how you found them (for example, a search of the sport-science database SportDiscus). Be specific about any database search you performed. Include the key words you used, and the ways you refined your search if necessary. For example: "A search for overtrain* produced 774 references, which reduced to 559 when we limited the search to intermediate or advanced levels (not le=basic). Further restricting the search to psych* or mood produced 75 references. We read 47 of these as full papers. Of the 41 papers cited in this review, we were able to obtain the following only in abstract form: Jones et al. (1979) and Smith and Brown (1987)." Describe and justify briefly any papers or areas that you decided not to include. FINDINGS This section is the most important part of your review. Do not give a summary paper-by-paper; instead, deal with themes and draw together results from several papers for each theme. I have identified four themes for this section: assessing the quality of published work; interpreting effects; points of grammar and style; and a few remarks about tables and figures. These themes are dealt with under subheadings. I encourage you to use such subheadings, which will make it easier for you to write the review and easier for others to read it. Quality of Published Work Look critically at any published work. The fact that something has been published does not mean the findings are automatically trustworthy. Some research designs are better than others (see Hopkins, 1998a). The most trustworthy conclusions are those reached in double-blind randomized controlled trials with a representative sample of sufficient size to detect the smallest worthwhile effects. The weakest findings are those from case studies. In between are cross-sectional studies, which are usually plagued by the problem of interpreting cause and effect in the relationship between variables. How subjects were sampled is an important issue. You can be confident about generalizing results to a population only if the sample was selected randomly from the population and there was a low proportion of refusals and dropouts (<30%). Be wary of generalizing results from novice athletes to elites. Something that enhances performance in young or untrained individuals may not work so well in highly trained athletes, who may have less headroom for improvement. There are big differences in the way data can be collected. At one extreme are qualitative methods, in which the researcher interviews subjects without using formal psychometric instruments (questionnaires). At the other extreme are quantitative methods, in which biological or behavioral variables are measured with instruments or techniques of known validity and reliability. In the middle are techniques with uncertain precision and questionnaires with open-ended responses. Qualitative assessment is time consuming, so samples are usually small in size and non-representative, which in turn limit the conclusions that can be made about effects in a population. The conclusions may also be biased by the prejudices of the researcher-interviewer. Quantitative data collection is more objective, but for some projects it could miss important issues that would surface in an interview. A combination of qualitative methods for pilot work and quantitative methods for a larger study should therefore produce valuable conclusions, depending, of course, on the design. You will probably find that your topic has been dealt with to some extent in earlier reviews. Cite the reviews and indicate the extent to which you have based your review on them. Make sure you look at the key original papers cited in any earlier reviews, to judge for yourself whether the conclusions of the reviewers are justified. Reviews, like original research, vary in quality. Problems with reviews include poor organization of the material and lack of critical thought. Some of the better reviews attempt to pull together the results of many papers using the statistical technique of meta-analysis. The outcomes in such reviews are usually expressed as relative risk, variance explained, or effect size, terms that you will have to understand and interpret in your review if you meet them. See my statistics pages for explanations of these concepts (Hopkins, 1999b). Interpreting Effects You cannot assess quantitative research without a good understanding of the terms effects, confidence limits of effects, and statistical significance of effects. An effect is simply an observed relationship between variables in a sample of subjects. An effect is also known as an outcome. Confidence limits and statistical significance are involved in generalizing from the observed value of an effect to the true value of the effect. The true value of the effect is the average value of the effect in the whole population, or the value of the effect you would get if you sampled the whole population. The confidence limits of an effect define the likely range of the true value of the effect: in short, how big or positive and how small or negative the effect could be. An effect is statistically significant if the likely range of the true value of the effect is unlikely to include the zero or null effect. Roughly speaking, statistically significant effects are unlikely to be zero, but such a rough interpretation is misleading: in sport and exercise science, the true value of an effect is never exactly zero. Statistical significance is notoriously difficult to understand, whereas confidence limits are at once more simple and more informative. Confidence limits are appearing more frequently in publications, but most authors still use statistical significance. As a reviewer you therefore have to come to terms with statistical significance. Here are a few suggestions on how to cope. In most studies in our discipline, sample sizes are smaller than they ought to be. So if a result is statistically significant, it will probably have widely separated confidence limits. Check to make sure the observed value of the effect is substantial (whatever that means--more about that in a moment). If it is, then you can conclude safely that the true value of the effect is likely to be a substantial. If the observed effect is not substantial--a rare occurrence for a statistically significant effect, because it means the sample size was too large--you can actually conclude that the true value of the effect is likely to be trivial, even though it was statistically significant! Problems of interpretation arise when researchers get a statistically non-significant effect. If the sample size is too small--as in almost all studies in sport and exercise science--you can get a statistically non-significant effect even when there is a substantial effect in the population. Authors of small-scale studies who do not understand this point will interpret a statistically non-significant effect incorrectly as evidence for no effect. So whenever you see a result that is not statistically significant, ignore what the author concludes and look at the size of the effect in question: if the effect is nearly zero and the sample size is reasonable, chances are there is indeed no worthwhile relationship in the population; if the effect is large, there may well be a substantial relationship in the population. But in either case, a bigger sample is required to be sure about what is going on. Sometimes the research may have been done: for example, moderate but non-significant effects in several studies probably add up to a moderate real effect, if the designs are trustworthy. How big is a moderate effect anyway? And what about large effects, small effects, and trivial effects? Make sure you look closely at the effects and interpret their magnitudes, regardless of whether they are statistically significant; the authors often don't. There are two approaches: statistical and practical. In the statistical approach, effects or outcomes are expressed as statistics that are independent of the units of measurement of the original variables. These statistics are the same ones referred to in the previous subsection: relative risk, variance explained, and effect size. Statisticians have come up with rules of thumb for deciding whether the magnitude of the effect is to be considered trivial, small, moderate, or large. For example, Cohen (1988) claims that an effect size of 0.2, a variance explained of 1% (equivalent to a correlation coefficient of 0.1), and a relative risk of 1.2 are the smallest effects worth detecting. I have extended Cohen's scale to effects of any magnitude, and I have made adjustments to his scale (Hopkins, 1998b). In the practical approach, you look at the size of the effect and try to decide whether, for example, it would make any difference to an athlete's position in a competition. For many events, a difference in performance of 1% or even less would be considered worthwhile. This approach is the better one for most studies of athletes. Whether you use the statistical or the practical approach, you must apply it to the confidence limits as well as the observed effect. Why? Because you want to describe how big or how small the effect could be in reality, not just how big or small it was in the sample that was studied. If the researchers do not report confidence limits, you can calculate them from the p value. I have devised a spreadsheet for this purpose (Hopkins, 1998c).

    ser34, posted

    not a bad movie.alittle grainy but a high quality fuck from a big dick.sheep dicks are cinsiderably narrower would have expected ewe to object to such a thick cock but apperenty she likes it fine.he looks like he could use a little viagra or is not interested in a hot sheep pussy.Having tried it myself I can say it is smoother and warmer than many human female I have fucked, It is what made me try animal pussy in the first place.I have fucked a femalt great dane and a brittany spaniel.Obviuosly the spaniel being the smaller animal had the tighter pussy but the sheep felt moe like a human pussy.

    zues1766, posted

    A great find, whoever found this and posted it here. While quality is a bit lacking due to being filmed off a television screen with a camera, the video is nonetheless high-quality sheep fuck, with a nice ewe laid out on her side, getting pounded by a considerably large man, his large dick sliding quite well into her tight ewe pussy. The action starts off a tad bit slow, but he soon picks up the pace, and it is quite obvious that the sheep is enjoying every second of it. No real audio to speak of, but definitely worth the watch.

    Helkarof, posted
  • Blonde Mare Creampie
    Blonde Mare Creampie

    Duration: 1:49 MEMBERS
    Rating: 4.2 (253 votes)

  • Man cums in sheep
    Man Cums In Sheep

    Duration: 0:12 MEMBERS
    Rating: 4.1 (258 votes)

  • Bitch Anal
    Bitch Anal

    Duration: 1:07 FREE MOVIE
    Rating: 3.5 (123 votes)

  • Dog and a dildo
    Dog And A Dildo

    Duration: 0:52 FREE MOVIE
    Rating: 3.7 (33 votes)

  • Men in female dog
    Men In Female Dog

    Duration: 1:00 MEMBERS
    Rating: 3.9 (251 votes)

  • bear fuck
    Bear Fuck

    Duration: 4:09 MEMBERS
    Rating: 1.4 (64 votes)

© 1998 - 2014   ·     ·   All rights reserved