Yes, they do have sex...and they overwhelmingly choose each other..their own species..unless there are rare "extenuating circumstances". In case of humans, how do we make sure people do not intentionally create those extenuating circumstances because they themselves want to have sex with the animal? This is the main issue here...power imbalance. Humans can easily control & manipulate animals. Its VERY SIMILAR as adult humans having sexual relationships with children. Even teenagers have sexual feelings & physical capacity to engage in sexual relationships. Many minor teens do willingly engage in such relationships with people of similar age. We don't call that abuse & its not illegal when both the parties are minor. But where do we draw the line? We draw the line where a minor engages in sexual relationship with an adult. Even if the relationship is 100% consensual, it is considered illegal. Why? Because of the perceived power-imbalance in the relationship. It's the same case in bestiality. It's not a hard concept to understand. Its selfish & potentially oppressive behavior. You are refusing to respect the rights of the other party & are trying to project your feelings on the animal. Even rapists do exactly the same thing. It's only their own feelings that matter to them. They have no respect for the rights of the other party.
/r/zoophilia archive
Illegal, yes. That doesn't mean it's necessarily abuse. When it comes to the law, a (usually somewhat arbitrary) line has to be drawn because it's difficult to otherwise establish when parties are mature enough.
What if the animal comes on to us first, without us "asking" first? (and yes, it does happen)
I'm sure there are many here who have the wellbeing of their animals as top priority over their own desires. In my case, my dog is getting older, and doesn't care for sexual things, so we don't. That doesn't mean I stop loving him, it just means we do other things instead.
How does the animal come on to you first? What does the animal do?
That depends a lot on the species; I can only comment on dogs myself. For male dogs, it's pretty obvious: humping, etc. For females, "flagging" (presenting their rear ends and pulling their tail to the side) is a pretty clear indicator of sexual intent. That being said, it can depend on the particular animal as well, and it's up to you to be familiar with your animal's species and your animal in particular.
I would think that humping could signal a number of different things- not just sexual. And flagging... animals are always naked so how do you know the dog isn't just walking around in front of you and not meaning to convey anything sexual?
As I said, it's important to be familiar with your particular animal's behavioral cues. It's difficult to make blanket statements like "this always means they want sex," but I don't think such absolute statements are necessary to be sure that my animal wants it. I assume that people aren't always 100% explicit about when they want it, either, though that doesn't mean you can't ever tell. At the same time, if you plan on making an advance in response, you ought to ensure that the animal would be comfortable saying "no" if, indeed, you did misinterpret things.
But a human would at least know the nature of the relationship that they have with you. An animal you have purchased and now you have sex with this animal. It's not like you went out into the woods and you definitively communicated to the animals there that you are a zoophile and have an interest in dating them. Then they would know what their relationship with you entails before they become involved with you (much like having a relationship with a human). Here you have taken an animal to live with you without asking him/her and if they allow it, you'll have sex with them. Is that not sort of weird? I'm not entirely sure that I can argue in our favor when confronting normies.
I'll agree with you that it is a bit weird, but what isn't about our sort of relationships? My solution--such as it is--is this: you have to be willing to still love and care for your animal even if it never accepts your advances. If they don't want sex, then you don't have sex with them. Not to say that that is in any way easy if you're attracted to them, but I think it's the responsible thing to do.
I don't think it's weird to have sexual desires for another species. I'm not sure if it is really something which exists outside of our own species (meaning I think it may only be humans that are really capable of romantically and sexually desiring a partner of another species- which has a lot to do with our intellect not being largely based in instinct). Because I think it may only be humans that can really think/feel this way, I worry that it's not something that non-humans can really reciprocate back to us (and therefore perhaps it isn't a very sustainable for lack of a better term sexuality). And while I would agree that it is funky and looks funky to put the 'wrong' species together in a romantic way... I LIKE the way it looks and the concept of it.
I also think it is very sad that there should be a creature such as a human that lives his/her life with a burning desire to relate to non-humans as lovers but can never completely express this feeling/desire to non-humans. I would like for the non-humans to know how I feel about them.
Don't you deserve a partner who would not be cruel to you and withhold sex from you? I'm not saying that you should go and rape your dog or whatever animal specie you're involved with. But I am saying that you deserve a partner who can fulfill you. No sex is a no-no. Now, what is difficult about being zoo is that your request is perhaps an unacceptable one. Since species tend to stick with others that are like them, I can't readily see your average non-human taking to a human in this way. I'm not sure if non-humans would really be wanting to do sex with humans. So I can envision a lot of them rejecting us or just not realizing that we want to be with them in this way. Yep. It's weird. Is it too weird to be defendable?
It's not about being responsible. We look to the animal kingdom for Love. The problem really is communication and how do we adequately communicate our intentions to non-humans where it can be grasped and understood fully by the non-human mind.
We might be the only ones capable of recognising simultaneously that different species are different species and yet also finding them sexy, but there are plenty of examples of non-humans displaying sexual behaviour towards other species, and in some cases synthetic objects. First example: a video clip of Stephen Fry exploring a forest, and a parrot mates with his guides' hair (YouTube clip). Second example: a dog trying to get frisky with a tiger (I do not claim to read feline body language, so I would not want to either agree or disagree with the poster who claims they are all "great friends").
For instance, you need to understand the relationship that you have with someone before you can have sex with them. You know that you can have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend because you are in a particular kind of relationship with them where such an activity is allowed/expected. But would you try to start to have sex with a human friend of yours when the two of you are in private? Again, that would depend on the nature of your relationship. This would usually start with talking about awkward things like, "you know.... I'm really happy when I see you... I really enjoy hanging out..... with you" etc. you try to hint that you really like them hint hint wink wink And they will either reciprocate the feelings or they will send a signal to you that they don't feel that way about you. You can never say to an animal, "hey I wanna take this to the next level." I wish I could. How can anyone know how an animal mentally processes a zoophile?
As was stated mares can lift their tail to the side walk in front of your and wink their vulva to show their sexual intent.
Honestly that's not a very obvious "let's do it" signal. I actually don't believe that animals are harmed by sex with humans. Even if the animals were reluctant about it, I have the suspicion that it really wouldn't be hugely traumatic for them. Do I know this for sure? No. For one thing, each animal is an individual and on the basis of their individuality some may like, others may not like, others may love it, others may hate it, others may feel ambivalent about it. But in order to see how they feel about it one probably just needs to interpret their emotional behavior. But all in all even if they don't like it (some of them- I think it would be ridiculous to say that all don't like it as I'M SURE there are many that love it or would love it [and for multiple reasons]), I think it is rather doubtful that an adult non-human animal even COULD experience psychological trauma from having sex with another animal creature. I think it's really just humans that have a stigmatized view about inter-species sexuality. I don't think non-humans really have enough intellectuality to really be strongly bothered by a human creature having intercourse with them. It is just a bit of science that the 'antis' need to get over. If you don't have the needed intelligence in your mind, you can't experience the thought kind of thing. If you don't have enough brain-power in your skull you won't be able to think certain kinds of thoughts. I think that human neurology is the most complex of all the animal kingdom.... For all of this, I don't believe that animals feel traumatized by having sex with humans as long as they are not forced to do this and are not tied or restrained in some way during it.
That's kind of an assertion that would need some actual argument.
But after all, that's a fair concern to have.
I don't think this one really knows about how zoophiles feel. I know I wouldn't want to deprive my future dog(s) of sex with other dogs if they desire it. I'll probably look to get them vasectomies so they can fuck bitches however they like (if their "owners" allow it, of course). Sex is often the center of these discussions, but really, it's because the sex part is mainly the part people have such problems with. The love is the really important part. Sex is optional. If he won't "naturally" want to have sex with me, I have no intention of manipulating him into it e.g. by depriving him of other outlets.
The comment is far more intelligent than most of our criticism, and the only valuable responses I can give are examples of zoophiles showing self-restraint because we regard consent as important. Myself, as one example, backing out of losing my virginity on three separate occasions because I was either sure they weren't into me, or I was not sure they understood what I wanted. I've met other non-humans since then who were (to show the contrast) totally clearly horny for me, but whom I have done nothing with because I'm in a monogamous relationship with a human.
It's an intelligent and logical argument if you accept the premise that animals should be treated as children. Of course, that doesn't really mesh with our social order, and once you remove that, this comment begins to quickly fall apart.
It also works if you think the current social order is wrong, and that all human interaction with non humans (even pet ownership, for example) is immoral - I've met at least one person who believes that. It's a bit late here, so I hope I can say something more constructive in the morning. :)
Indeed it does, however most people who use this argument don't believe in taking it to that extreme, hence my comment on the hypocrisy.
OK, more awake now. Absolutely agree that most people are hypocrites. However, in my experience pointing out their hypocrisy doesn't help us at all.
When the question is "power imbalance?", it's not necessarily because they are treated as children. What effect does house-training a dog have on their psyche? Being home alone in the daytime? How do they really feel about us providing all their food? Sure, the only frame of reference many (perhaps most) people have for the lives their pets lead is children, and they might not even know that that's totally unrealistic (in addition to all the stuff we usually discuss here, 2 year old dogs apparently have the social skills of 14 year old humans). But, like I said, showing them to be hypocrites doesn't answer them.
Understanding the inner world of a non-human mind is not certain: we can't reliably understand the inner world of other humans, although I suspect that our language doesn't help us as it is necessarily behaviouralist. (If my suspicion is correct, then our language makes it harder to gauge each other than to gauge non-humans).
In my ideal post-singularity utopia, the artificial intelligences running everything will be able to understand non-human body language well enough for the difference between enthusiastic consent and mere assent (which is what I think this critic is getting at) to be obvious to everyone.
This is true. I was more "preaching to the choir" I guess... lol, being that I'm amongst friends here.
If I were truly debating this with someone who was anti-zoo and using this argument, I would not use a hypocrisy route but try to play at "why do the power imbalances matter?"
We do lots of things because we have power over animals. If it doesn't hurt them and maybe even relieves a (in this case sexual) need, why does that matter? It shouldn't.
Something like that. It both distances them from children (children don't have sexual needs) and establishes the points irrelevance to the ultimate point we do have: That animals can display sexual desire to a human, and willfully initiate consent.
But again, I am preaching to the choir here...
I would question the rarity of those extenuating circumstances, because domestication is neither rare nor uninvolved in the likelihood of interspecies relationships developing. They choose each other when their own species is the most socially and emotionally important to them, which they generally are in nature, but this is by no means universal.
Some people, no doubt, do manipulate circumstances to make themselves more attractive to the animal in comparison with other options. But the same is true of every relationship, which is why women wear makeup, men work out, and both sexes exaggerate their positive sides with a potential mate (generally, again, not always).
Power imbalances, though they are often (especially when arbitrary) an indication of the likelihood for abuse, are not in and of themselves a problem. Were that the case, people in BDSM relationships of total power exchange, where essentially one party is given permission by the other to control them because they want to be controlled, would never be ethically justified in their actions. This is an extreme case, of course, but goes to show that power imbalance is not identical to abuse or harm. Whether such things can ever be justified on an individual level depends on one's ethical framework, and a radical feminist one (which involves the same rhetoric) is unlikely to view it as justified.
In my own mostly utilitarian view, however, the most important thing is whether the relationship involves significant harm to any party. By this view, sex with minors is mostly wrong because of unforeseen future social and psychological consequences. Even assuming no harm to a minor at the time, they might years later come to regard their manipulation and sexual objectification at the hands of someone who should know better as revolting, and be traumatized after the fact.
With animals, the capacity for such retrospection and reinterpretation of past events is severely limited. Even if years later someone learned that they were sexually involved with a human and then proceeded to act differently toward them because of it, they probably would not connect those two things because their minds cannot process chains of events that long and tortuous. The bottom line is, if it felt fine to them at the time, I doubt that they can ever change their minds on that.
On the last bit of slander, only personal appeals can be relevant. I can say from experience that I respect the rights of socially conscious animals that I interact with far more than someone who thinks they need protection from any "potential oppression." I am not so much projecting my own feelings as observing theirs and noting the similarities. To say otherwise because of some ideological backwardness is overwhelmingly ignorant at best and dehumanizing to both me and (to an extent) potential animal partners at worst.
Here, I think, is a key point for not treating animals as children. Adult animals are both sexually mature, and, though they might be "less intelligent" than us (though that in and of itself can be debated), they are mentally mature in that they aren't going to gain significantly more intelligence in the future. On the other hand, having a sexual relationship with a sexually, but not mentally, mature human can cause trauma later because their intelligence will mature later. You cannot therefore meaningly compare adult animals with human children/adolescents.
As for power imbalance, one thing you seem to have neglected is that an adult animal, especially a larger one such as a large-breed dog, has great capacity to refuse if you try something they don't like. And if the animal is in such a state that it isn't willing to reject your unwanted advances, then there's probably abuse in your relationship with the animal anyway, which I wouldn't be OK with regardless if anything sexual ever happened.
Whether or not your relationship with your animal involves sex, I believe you ought to be attentive to how your animal responds to your actions and not punish them for showing you that they don't like what you're doing. In other words, I don't aggree with the sort of "massive power imbalance" you seem hung up on in ANY human-animal relationship. Not that there is no power imbalance at all, but neither is there perfect equality in any inter-human relationship either.
Excellent addendum. Between the two of us, I think we've got this covered. We should tag team on silly arguments more often. And I've got just the name for it: the Knotty Dogs!
(chirping crickets)
The "power imbalance" between an animal and a human is only significant insofar as the animal is aware and fearful of it. Children possess a cognitive complex that causes them to submit to disadvantageous processes if it is so requested by an adult. A child may put up with sexual abuse, without complaint, just because an adult told them to.
Animals have no such complex, and even traditionally biddable animals (such as dogs) prioritise their needs not to be used or abused above pleasing the humans they love. So long as the animal does not fear a human retaliation for their rejection (and other abuse must have occurred for that to be the case), they will not act in recognition of a power imbalance at all, hence why it is projection of the perception of animals as children that brings about the sentiments expressed in the comment.
How do you know that animals do not have this complex?
Does this answer your question?
you're just trying to lighten the conversation
No, this is a video of dogs enthusiastically refusing a harmless procedure initiated by their owners. Not, in fact, going along because they alledgely have the exact complex we're talking about. I'm not trying to lighten the conversation, I'm providing evidence you're mistaken.
I'd forgotten those clips. They make a good point.
It's late so a quick reply, but what is the power imbalance between a 1000 lbs horse and a human. Sure we can do all kinds of things to them to make them(ropes,pain devices or training) but anyone who has given a shot or wormer to a green horse knows that the power balance isn't as unlevel as the commenter implied.
Yes, we can very easily control an animal, but I could tire up a woman in the basement too. A law banning all heterosexual sex isn't a valid response.
Name a verified case of animal human sex that resulted in harm to the animal which couldn't be covered under animal abuse laws.
That's the scary part: I'm not aware of one. These laws are over the top, unnecessary, and completely "pat on the back" in nature at the expense of a sexual minority. They should be unconstitutional for that reason, but try proving that.
I think the thing here is that while it is true that you could tie up a woman in your basement, the woman would be able to tell of the wrong thing that you did. Everyone could know her feeling about it. But with an animal- when the animal is acting like how animals normally act, outsiders do not know whether the animal feels like, "I keep getting raped by my human at the place where I live." Obviously they likely don't think in full human language sentences, but you know what I mean.
Does it seem true that animals normally just choose mates among those that are the same species as they are?
One has to consider, however, that, if real abuse were to have taken place, would the animal really act "how animals normally act"? If you spend enough time around animals, you'll notice that they have ways of letting you know how they feel. Some are more subtle than others, but they are nevertheless there. Somehow I can't imagine that if you kept doing something to your pet that they didn't like that they would continue to act normally. And, if they do act normally, you have to consider the possibility that no abuse has occured.
What does it mean when a cat is sitting across from you and the cat puts one ear back- not both, just one?
ear mites?
Well my cats have always had a tendency to get that! But I feel like they're having an attitude.
They heard something.
Nobody (presumably) sexually abuses their horse publicly. Outsiders still won't know, even if there is a law against it.
I struggle to understand how a law would help. If you have actual evidence that someone sexually abused an animal, you can already convict them of animal cruelty. If you don't have evidence... Shouldn't we presume innocence when there is no evidence to the contrary?
Well, I can tell you now that animals react differently to different people.
For example, one possible reaction of a horse that is abused is to attack people "coming into its territory". Of course often this abuse is found in the guise of normal practice so you can see these behaviours often. That same horse would come to me without calling. So yeah, the horse can't say words and if that is the only definition of consent you'll accept I only hope you require consent for all the things done to animals.
I have never been afraid of a six year old human, but I have been afraid of both a six year old dog and a six year old horse.
What is the 'normal practice' that you're talking about?
As far as getting consent for the other things done to animals, I'll tell you why that's different from having sex with them. Humans are very intelligent (at least that seems to be the case as far as we know at this time) so it is "natural" for humans to control nature- as well as the other animals. It is due to our human intellect that allows us to see the world the way it is and then also simultaneously have opinions about the way that we believe the world should be. And then because we are so "highly-branched" (I suppose) neurologically speaking, we have the ability to innovate- we have the ability to ask ourselves, 'How can I meet my goal?' Humans are in general, very motivated to design and organize nature so that it works for them and their purposes. Humans see in their minds what they need, want and desire. Humans see their vision in their mind's eye, and they work together with other humans (and interestingly enough- sometimes non-humans) to alter the current reality to meet whatever dream goal that the human had in mind. Of course, it doesn't always come together as smoothly or perfectly, but I think this is the general idea about what humans are capable of accomplishing. So, because of the human intellect, I would say it is natural for humans to control nature. In other words, humans were BORN to direct the life paths of other species... Non-humans mate or do not mate largely depending on what the will of humans is. Non-humans live or die dependent on what humans want. It is humans that decide whether a particular species will persist into the future or not. Our ability to control the natural world is exceedingly good- sometimes to the planet's detriment, but the thing is- we even have the ability to solve those problems too. We can do weird things to animals because we're smart creatures- like really damn smart! Non-human intellect appears to be no match to ours, so we're the creatures that call the shots!
So humans are natural controllers of the natural world. Humans are conscious to how they control the nature world while non-humans are most likely not conscious as to how the way they live effects the bigger picture of the planet in its whole.
That also doesn't mean that we should be able to do anything that we want to do to animals. Some things that we could conceivably do to animals would be ethically wrong to do to them since it would be cruel... We are learning that animals experience things such as pain and therefore it would be wrong to treat them in a cruel way (and there may be other things that we currently do to them and/or with them that we also shouldn't do but we have not come to realize that it is a bad thing to be doing as of yet?). Morality is always an evolving science. It needs to be based on logic, reason and evidence of course.
Another reason why we believe consent is required when humans have sex with non-humans but not required in other activities is because it is natural for humans and non-humans to share the planet with each other (in other words, it seems natural for us to be able to make friends with each other and/or "work" together in various ways i.e. domestication) but it seems to be unnatural to sexually copulate together. It seems to be the natural way of all creatures to congregate with other beings of very similar genetic sequence when the sexual hormones are in high gear. Now, I am not sure if this is the case for me specifically as an individual animal. Personally I don't feel that I have ever really been attracted to humans. I think I am attracted more broadly to males. Any creature that is male I think I feel a little bit attracted by, even if I may have no actual desire to be with that male individual. It's not even about the genitalia either (although that is something to like)- it's more about the maleness generally that I feel turned on by. If a living creature that is male is around me I will feel turned on (as long as it's not a relative because ew). That aside, this general thing we observe (of birds of a feather flocking together) I feel is not true in the case of my own biology. But there is supposedly something weird about me as society would try to proclaim (and how could anyone know? maybe they are right. I could possibly be literally like some sort of "freak of nature" I don't know) I think there are some ways in which humans turn me off and yes, some of those ways has to do with the way humans look (which should be interesting to any biologist/psychologist/sexologist).
But anyway, I feel like I tend to see "birds of a feather flocking together" in life. In order to procreate, we need to be genetically close enough. Therefore I think it makes sense to think that genetics that allow one to be attracted to those with more similar genetics to oneself would be passed on to offspring more often. Therefore perpetuating this "everybody sticking to their own group" preference or instinctual drive into the future. In order for speciation to occur there needs to be mutation, selection of traits, and population isolation. It would make sense that in prehistory (and up until the present day) things would be mating with things that are like itself. Imagine our ancient ape ancestors. They were living with other ape individuals (because apes can conceive of apes and give birth to creatures that are like itself based on the genetics that you have to give). You're growing up and the creatures that are in your life you are drawn to not only because they are in your life but because they are mentally close to you- the way they think is very similar to how you think (especially due to genetics) so then you could probably relate to them most closely and I think that is likely at play when creatures are keen to mate with their own "kind." And even this concept of 'kind' is interesting because even Charles Darwin has said, "Humans and animals are not different in kind, rather they are different in degree" or something to that effect.
So it kind of makes sense for creatures to be drawn to creatures like itself to fulfill birds and bees duties. But can they ever be attracted to a creature not genetically like itself? Is it natural? Or are we zoophiles just some messed up people- just some screwball mistakes? I don't feel that a non-human has ever "come on" to me. I don't know if I'd be able to recognize it even if it were to happen. I don't know what turns non-humans on sexually or if they even experience sex in that way (of being "turned on" by things). But it is kind of interesting because in the way that humans don't excite me much sexually, maybe it may be possible for a non-human to find humans to be attractive as humans- because like how a zoophile finds non-humans to be attractive in their non-human ways, perhaps a non-human could find humans to be attractive the way that humans are in their fully human ways. I shouldn't have to change myself to seem more like a female bear, for an example, because I should seem sexy to a bear in my current human form.... While it may be what I like, I think from an objective standpoint it is all quite weird (it being zoophilia). I feel a bit confused by it all. I just wish an animal could love me back in the same way....
And as far as feeling afraid of a dog or horse goes, I think this is a thing that people who are against zoophilia can utilize because I can hear them saying, "oh great, that's just what we need. More dumb people going to the Emergency room because an animal rejected the person's suggestion of sex. That is an indicator that we shouldn't be having sex with animals because the animals don't want it, the backlash from the animals injures humans. It's a bad idea. Animals are very strong and weapon-laden and they only have subtle ways to communicate until they all out explode at you." And how awful is that for your only mode of communication to cause you to blow up at someone you most likely like on some level but you just don't want to do that thing with... (I'm guessing there may be some animals not interested in sex)? They have to just growl at you to tell you they don't like something but a growl is so very very negative. It is too bad that they can't effectively tell you 'no' in a way which would be more mindful of you and your feelings or just all around more polite. But no, animals don't have any way to make up for that.
And how do you even tell an animal that you would like to start a sexual relationship with them? Bend over naked? Grab their privates? What if they don't understand what you're doing or don't know that that thing you just did was meant to communicate something to them? Such as "let's get it on, baby" lol. (of all things) See I don't know if an animal would be expecting such a gesture to be directed at them coming from such a different kind of animal (such as a human).
So, because I feel this argument is just the same merry-go-round as many of the other arguments against bestiality over the years and is a relatively new offshoot of the pervasive rape culture meme I would like to ask what the intent of getting consent is? What are you trying to protect? Innocence? Dignity? Unpleasant situations? Physical damage?
That is true that our society is very concerned about "rape culture" nowadays. I think the intent behind getting consent is that it is considered an awful experience to end up having sex when you actually really were not wanting it. We're all hyper-cautious these days about the worry that rape is happening more often than it on the surface seems. We all want to make sure that when you engage in sex that that is really what you want to do.
I would say that "informed consent" is impossible even for pairs of humans, and the only sensible standard is "enthusiastic consent that both parties are free to withdraw at any time". The idea of informed consent is great at first glance, but it does mean that someone who had enthusiastically consensual sex and then merely regretted it later (a category which includes me, and probably almost every non-virgin) would genuinely be a rape victim as they were not sufficiently informed to avoid the regret. Of course, this does not mean that I think people should be free to lie about important things: a person who knows they are HIV+ but lies about it to get sex is certainly doing something that should be illegal, but I feel that should be some form of endangerment or attempted homicide rather than sexual assault.
On this note, what about someone who feels obligated, through no fault of yours, to say yes? A sense of duty or whatever is going on in their head?
I've encountered this with two humans and they each got mad at me for stopping because they weren't enthusiastic, but later confirmed they didn't want to at the time. Humans lie even when you tell them you want their honesty. So if we cannot trust verbal communication, what then? I like the idea of "enthusiastic consent". If my partner is standing there taking it, then obviously it is time to re-evaluate. If seeking me out, seeking my touch out, pressing against me and so forth, I'm pretty happy with that. It has the added advantage that it also works with animals and avoids the lying scenario above.
The counter claim that "even rape victims get wet so you're arguing for the rapist" is absurd in this respect although it is often what is use. Sure, involuntary reactions aren't a sign of consent. But is a "yes" always a yes? Or should it be a "YES!" that includes more?
Stories like that are why I think "enthusiastic" is stronger than "informed", not just more achievable.
I'm sorry, I can't parse that. Can you rephrase?
is one of my worries, though not in the way it's usually presented. The normal form is "it's just instinct" - a spectacularly poor argument as my sexuality is also instinct, and if it was anything other than instinct I would be a vanilla heterosexual who only has penetrative sex to reproduce. The better form of the argument is "it's just a reflex", which is a concern I used to have about male dogs humping humans. To answer that concern to my own satisfaction, I had to wait until I met a dog who was extremely clear about their emotions.
Sorry, I was saying that it was the argument that I often here, ie often used against me.
Power imbalance only matters if you are going to take adventage of it. As long as you're not forcing the animal into anything, no one is hurt and both parties are enjoying the experience, why should it matter if you technically could use your dominance over the animal against them? That's like saying that someone who owns a gun should never have sex with someone without any guns, because technically they have an opportunity to hold them at gunpoint if they wanted to have sex with them without their consent.
This is probably one of the best responses I've received.
Plus the potential for harm. Abuse is when power is employed harmfully.
Sex with adult animals poses far less potential for harm than sex with children: An adult animal who enjoys sex at the time is certainly not abused, because their immediate consent is the only consideration; a child who gives misguided consent is likely to become a traumatised adult and so an adult who indulges a child's libido is guilty of abuse.