is penetrative sex less consensual than being penetrated? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-02-09 21:04:31 by Yearningmice
i'm curious to get a variety of opinions on this topic. I've recently met several zoos who believe that there should be concern when a human penetrates an animal in regards to consent. What do you think?
not a chance, the two acts are completely on par. For someone to say the lack of consent argument only applies to female animals needs to go back to zoo 101. Animals use their body language to express their emotions. This doesnt change just because you have a female dog instead of male.
I can see their point of view. You can force yourself onto a bitch in a way that is a bit more difficult with a male animal (although I have seen a few questionable videos...) but this person is not what I would call a zoophile. For someone to group these animal abusers in with zoos who prefer female animals is borderline insulting and a slap in the face of all logic, which is basically what we use to counter the common opposition arguments that are all based around their knee-jerk reaction.
Well, as has been said by many an anti-zoo, just because he's humping doesn't mean he consented...
It is possible to rape a male animal. The argument is along the same lines of "she got wet so she must be enjoying it."
I'm not sure how female-on-male rape happens with humans, but I've certainly heard of it. Although my girlfriend — literally as type this — pointed out "viagra".
One thing I've worried about from time to time, is if humping might be a reflex action (akin to the wobbly-leg-thing they do when you tickle them in the right place) or if it might be a reliable sign of enthusiasm.
Well, if a women lubes up when being fucked, then it mustn't be rape. Her body reacted, right? No drugs needed. A man can have a reaction without intending or consenting.
Another reaction, scratch a horse in the right spot hard enough and they won't have control of their lips...
Maybe some people have the idea that it's "easier" to tell for sure when a male animal is consenting, and I can get where they would be coming from. If you're not experienced with either sex of dogs, for example, a male still has very obvious signs he's interested. I don't have experience myself, but I would think you would probably have to have a little more understanding of female dog body language to be safe. How to tell if she's consenting to begin with, signs of discomfort, etc. that don't really apply when you're letting a male do his thing.
I think as long as the human understands the body language of the species they're having sex with and knows how to tell if an animal is consenting or in pain, there isn't really a big difference between the two.
Yea, so I find male and female dogs are about as likely to hump your leg. As a matter of fact I've found it more prevalent in female dogs but that just might be my experience. I don't know why people have this idea that a male dog is more communicative about it's sexual desires.
I think we are anthropomorphizing the idea of human sexual roles and sexism onto animals when we say this. The more I challenge the idea the more sure I become that sexism is involved.
I share this view.
I believe its easier for the layman to believe that consent is there when a human is being penetrated. This isnt to say that females cant consent but you may have to be a little more attuned to body language.
It's also more of a turn on for a hetero guy to watch a girl get humped, so there is probably some of that too. I think you are selling yourself a bill of goods when you say "male dogs hump" therefore "male dogs consent".
Well body language is still incredibly important for both. What I meant is that it's easier for the layman to interpret that as consent due to active participation. A lot of people also tend to believe that a dog just simply won't enjoy being penetrated and it's harder to break through that mentality.
My "you are selling" comment was directed at the reader, not you specifically, sorry. I agree that it is easy for someone to assume something based on preconceived notions of sexual activity but doesn't make it more right.