Let's face it, the only reason why bestiality/zoophilia is prohibited is because there is this social taboo against it.
I mean, I guess I can understand some concern about whether or not the animals consent.. While it is true that we humans do a lot of things to animals without giving any regard to their consent I think that bestiality might be a little different because in bestiality there must need to be trust in the relationship between the human and non-human, right? I can't see any human walking up to a wild animal and "getting anywhere" with a wild animal.. the animal would need to be tame at least first.
First of all I think it's kind of weird that animals even live with us humans to begin with..... Why stay with "family" that isn't even the same species as you(and then I understand that we humans- for whatever mysterious reasons probably built into our DNA- tend to really want to be in the company of other species and we want to befriend members of other species- we like living with them and choose to have them)? {But that is weird about them [animals] as well because I don't know if they even think in terms of 'species.' I mean in order to recognize that beings consist of 'different species' you need to be able to categorize things and humans seem to be really good at grouping things- seeing things as existing as part of a group- I'm not sure if non-humans think the same way as humans in this way} It is like those "wild children/ feral children/ children raised by wolves" except the other way around. And then it usually seems as though they sincerely like the human individuals that they share their lives with (and I've never actually done zoophilia- I'm speaking from my "platonic" experiences).
Yes I think animals are very mysterious (and sexy)
But they must be individuals and so I worry sometimes that human suggestions of sex might feel obligatory to some animals that may believe that "they must please this so-called human creature which provides for all of their needs and makes life comfortable for them." And I'm sure that sex is not that big of a deal and once again- they are all individuals which means they will have different ways of thinking about life one to the next... you can probably imagine the various possible reactions. It seems as though sometimes animals know how to manipulate human emotions in just the right way... so that they can control how charming they come of as to us. But I am thinking that this could possibly be a "survival mechanism" We all (as living beings) want to live! We all need to survive in the environment that we find ourselves in. Getting along with humans is going to help you to survive... Do you see some of the perspective that non-humans (especially- I suppose- the domestic ones) may have to worry about (if "worry" is something that they really even mentally experience)?
Some animals are self-sufficient... But they live naked- at one with nature... (all modern day domesticated species came from wilderness-inhabitating ancestors). They don't choose to live like how humans do (with clothes and all these "creature comforts" that our species made to make our existences nicer). They don't choose to make lives to mirror what humans have made or they don't think of it but then.... they live in a world (planet Earth) where they can detect (I'm sure) with their senses all the things that humans have created. I'm sure they can see our sky-scrapers, are they not impressed?? These "wild living" animals don't seem to want to have much to do with humans.... in general. Perhaps they don't know what they are missing out on? Perhaps the majority of their experiences with our species have been negative (with humans doing things like banging pots and pans at them etc)? Perhaps their parents specifically teach them to avoid humans (and I have come across some accounts that would suggest this)?
I think people worry about the consent thing because they maybe don't believe that animals could ever "get into" something like cross-species shenanigans. I think we have a tendency to see animals in a "purist" light, like they are some of the most innocent beings, all clean and child-like! How undignified for the animals because they are NOT children- they are full adults and it is only right to regard them as such!
Then they think that zoophiles descend on these sex-less and pure animals-and the zoophile is the one with the dirty mind and is the one that has the wolf-ish plan that seems to go against nature because well- such a union doesn't produce offspring. That is the reason why they think it is wrong or unnatural- crime against nature. Is the zoophile sick for having a specie preference? In particular a preference for a species other than one's own kind? Are animals truly free to decline the zoophile's suggestion? Do the animals truly feel in their minds that they are truly free to reject the human or do they feel dependent on this human so that they should do what the human wants.. I'll bet that animals probably visibly dislike and protest a visit to the vet more than they probably do to bestiality... My guess would be that an animal would be much more "pissed" about having to go to the doctor (even though a visit to the doctor will ultimately be good for them but they don't seem to understand this)
I wish there was a better way to know whether the animals were really "into" the "romantic bestiality" with you or not.
......I wish I could meet them for the first time as full grown adults and I wish they could know straight up front my 'single white female' personal want ad spiel like as in the case of a real date..
And how can anyone not agree that non-human animals are SMOKING HOT?!! <333 ;D
Quite a ramble there... but there are some fascinating points in it.
I'm pretty sure that long term romantic/sexual relationships between humans and other species happen almost completely with domesticated animals. This is not a coincidence. Over the thousands of years that human beings have kept animals as companions and/or livestock, the animals have been bred with at least two traits in mind:
I consider it an obvious (though to many distasteful) consequence of these two selection pressures that some of these animals would become sexually attracted to humans, or at least willing to take an opportunity for sex with them.
As far as the idea that animals have sex with humans in part to please them... I'm sure that happens sometimes, but it depends more on the overall relationship with the animal and socialization than on anything inherent to the situation itself. If a dog is trained by learned helplessness, forced to be in uncomfortable situations until they simply do as they are asked, then this will probably happen. But there are other training methods which retain some sense of agency for the animal (positive reinforcement, for instance), and in these cases I find it difficult to think that they are emotionally coerced into anything they do.
Knowing an animal's emotions is tricky at best. Perhaps someday we'll have translation devices for them, for general emotional states if not some sort of verbal "I'm hungry/sleepy/happy" message. Until then, though, the only real way to know is in the moment of attempted courtship, by going slow and mimicking their natural rituals. For example, by playing and wrestling with a dog, sniffing at them suggestively, and observing their responses.
As for your last question... DAT ASS
But what about feral animals? Do a youtube search for feral horses, or feral deer, and you will see what I mean.
Wow, that was quite the text wall there. I'll try to answer some of these in case they weren't rhetorical. If it was just a rant, and or you already know some of the answers, skip over them.
Not always; rape is possible for either side to perpetrate. There's no trust there. Unless you count the "trust" in the force to get what someone want.
While I doubt it's in a striclty species way of thinking, I think most animals can recognize different types/groups of animals. If the couldn't I'd imagine that canablaism would be much more common. Not to mention all the prey animals would either die out from being hunted (due to not understanding another animal is a predator) or invalid/no procreation (Likelyhood of offspring is extremely low if you try to mate outside your species.)
Just a quick note, (not trying to be pedantic or anything) zoophilia is not the sexual act; it's the attraction.
That's something I've wondered as well, and not just in this context. It's a philosophical question of what free will is and if any of us are truly free. I don't have the answer for that and I doubt it can ever really be known. As such, I choose to believe in the agency of all of us. I could, for example, decide to be a total jerk to everyone I meet. Doing so would cause quite a few problems (and more importantly I don't want to), but I could do it. Likewise, the dog (or other animal) could say no, even if they knew they'd get beaten for declining. And some do in such horrible circumstances. But they say no (those that do) because that's who they are. Is it any different for the human that is submissive?
Probably. Socialability does help (most) animals survive. Notice how the more solitary creatures don't seem to be able to manipulate us, at least not in quite the same way.
I think they do, but I have only ancedotal evidence to offer. Think about a dog's seperation anxiety or how they act when thier human friends/owners/etc. get sick or injured.
Umm, no, I don't think they are. Mostly due to cognitive issues.
Indeed, most experiences wild animals have with humans are negative. Think about it, most humans chase them, shout at them, hurt them, and generally just act like they are there for whatever they want. And then there's the general survival instinct to fear what you don't know: it's dangerous often enough that that instinct is valid. And, yes, I'd say they teach thier young to do the same. Although I'm sure there are those wild animals out there that don't listen thier parents lol :)
And that's because of ignorance due to that purist attitude mentioned.
Short of something like monitoring their brain chemistry for things like oxytocin, there's not much more you can do. Just the way things are.
Beats me lol
Oddly enough, I've looked into this a bit (though I haven't really approached anyone with this idea). Looking it up again in response to this question, I found some interesting things. Most notably, the Kinsey Institute, which recently (last year) appointed as its director C. Sue Carter, a neuroscientist who specializes in the role of oxytocin and vasopressin in mammalian bonding. There may be a way to encourage research of this type at or near the Institute, which would be awesome if it could be done.
Was Oxytocin Michael Jackson's drug of choice? I thought it killed him.
I'm pretty sure Propofol killed him, but I think you're thinking of Oxycontin.
It would be nice, although we're still quite a way from a kind of portable version that could be used to determine how our partner(s) feel about us. If nothing else, the results could be used to validate how zoos and our partner(s) feel about us, which could then be used to help with spreading public awareness. As is, there is too little research on zoophilia going on. So, did you have any specific ideas on getting them to research this? Feel free to respond via PM
I think it's up to the human to show the animal that he/she is loved whatever he/she decides to do.
Can animals understand that we value their wishes and preferences? I think, yes, to some extent...
I'm doing an interview for a website and recently the author asked me how I know if an animal is romantically attracted to me. It was a tough question to answer, honestly. I'd like to think animals can feel romantic love like we can, but right now there's no real way to know for sure, and I'm always careful not to anthropomorphize animals too much. It's hard to think about the possibility that my partner doesn't love me the same way I love her, but I do think animals can tell when they're loved (romantic or not. I think even your average pet owner would agree with this). So even if she doesn't interpret that love the same way I do, the most important thing to me is just that she knows she is loved.