Evidence that animals can consent (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-07-23 00:45:30 by [deleted]
Im not against zoophilia, being a zoosexual and all, but I for one believe animals can consent; but im having trouble finding actual proof. Does anyone have any links prove it or atleast backs it?
I don't know if I can link the "proof" here, as it's all just really good porn between humans and dogs, and even that is specious. But a couple of recommendations:
Look up Aluzky on BF, as many of his videos are of high quality and particularly the ones with his boyfriend (a black lab) show enthusiasm from both of them. I'd recommend for this purpose "Aluzky_Breeding_Pull_Out", as it shows a slow tease with the boyfriend eager to get started.
A former professional producer, petlust, also had some good videos of this kind, though most of theirs are mixed at best. My favorites for this argument involve a blond guy and his golden retriever bitch.
Other than that, all that exists as far as I'm aware are proofs of concept based on biology. We and other mammals have similar emotional lives, based on our endocrine responses to stimuli, and particularly to sexual stimulation and orgasm. Humans and dogs show increased oxytocin levels in their urine when they look at each other (here's a newish paper on that). Perhaps someday we'll be able to test whether sexual interaction strengthens or otherwise modifies such a response, which would be good evidence to know about either way.
Number one rule in sex is consent. Unfortunately, consent is one of those words who's definition can change on a whim of anyone arguing against a particular lifestyle.
Some how the world has molded been into, "Must agree, must be a human, must be 18 or older, must not be mentally impaired or mentally different than average." Oddly, sex is the only thing in which the consent argument is used. I really think we need to get off this whole consent mess and think instead, "Is what I am doing harming myself or others. Can my actions hurt this person or myself sometime in the future?" But that will never happen. It's too easy to butt in any argument with, "Animals can't consent."
Unfortunately the harm principle is far from being flawless. Is there harm when you do it with a unconscious or sedated person? If you don´t get violent/forceful, having sex with a person under the influence of anaesthetics would be "ethical". Some doctors in hospitals would be glad to agree...or some guys drugging up girls in bars . Even some of the "underage fanatics" could start arguing whether it was okay to have sex with a kid when it is unconscious. Think about the implictions of using the harm principle as the only scale of ethical measurement. Think about all of the situations where no physical and psychical harm is inflicted. What about "softly raping" a person with diminuished mental capabilities? What about sneaking into a bedroom and having sex with a woman asleep? Of course I would be honestly fascinated with the ability to have sex without waking up the person :), but still there´s ethical questions unanswered. I´m good with sticking to the consent principle, but see the need to redefine the narrow definitions. Even humans don´t always have sex with "fully informed consent". I even think that this construct of "f.i.v.c." is highly overrated, or do you sign treaties before you have sex with another human? Do you discuss all of the consequences before you undress? No, even humans do it out of simple horniness, without any consideration. The only problem with consent is that it requires something the animal simply can´t provide you with, verbal (!) consent. But this is anthropocentric and would exclude having sex with a voiceless person. Of course, this is silly because there´s sign language replacing the human ability to speak. According to this, animals have a "sign language" too, but most of the humans are unable to understand it. So, whose fault is it? The animal´s because it has no human voice? The zoo´s because he "speaks" horse, dog, etc.? Or is it the fault of those unable to understand animals?
Animals can consent, but they will do it in their "language", not yours. There are some people with the ability to understand, many only THINKING they understand, but fool themselves while taking advantage of the animal. The infamous "calf blowjob" idiot, for example. He thinks the calf is consenting, but actually only (ab-) uses the sucking reflex of an immature creature.
Well, there´s some hope that the consent issue can be resolved. If you have seen documentaries about animal behavior research, you already know that some species have been taught sign language to communicate with humans, such as some monkey species and dolphins. Research more and more proves that some animals basically have the same abilities to communicate such as creativeness and invention of new, complex structures ( A chimpanzee who had a severe dislike of one of his researches combined the sign for "shit" and "scientist/person" to call the hated guy a " shitty person" ). From an non-speciecist perspective, it is quite sad that humans only accept communicative capabilities of animals when the animals learn a human way of communication instead of dealing with it the logical way and learning their language, but it fits into the common anthropocentrism. It is a tiny progress compared to what animals were seen as , let´s say, a hundered years before. As time will proceed, it will become unavoidable to accept what shamans and druids taught thousands of years ago; all life is one and being a human is nothing exceptional. The environmental/eco movement has shown how damn dependent we "superior" humans are of animals. Without them, we couldn´t exist. We lived through an era of "thesis" before civilisation was "invented", in unison with our environment. We now live through the time of "antithesis", in which animals and nature are exploitable matter for personal gain, with all of the cruelties involved like slaughterhouses, industrial animal farming etc. The age of "synthesis" lies before us. Either we as a species accept that we´re not the only intelligent life form on this planet and we need to stop exploiting what is nurturing us or it sure will be the entire planet´s demise, not only ours. If we want to live, we need to swallow down the anthropocentrism and replace it with another "weltbild" including animals, plants, everything...as equal participants of the whole game. Zoophiles are the pioneers of this new age. The age of human predominance is over.
A more condensed methodology might serve you better.
To prove that, you first have to give an exhaustive definition of what consent is and what forms may or may not be required for sex.
I'd say it's something along the lines of "Knows what to expect from sex and makes it reasonably obvious he/she wants it". I don't think there's really "proof" for it, but many anecdotes.
The evidence I have in favour is mainly from one male dog. One time I visited him and his owner, I was sitting on his sofa, and he knocked me over, his front paws pinned my hair down against the cushions so I couldn't even turn my head, and he started humping me. I was fully clothed at the time, so no sex, but if I'd been naked he was big enough and strong enough that I don't think I could've stopped him if I'd tried.
(His owner found this amusing. I think we were watching a film at the time).
As others have already stated, consent is tricky because it is ill-defined.
Here's my opinion of the consent matter; if an animal who is considered property by law (a household pet), largely has no choice of consent in 99% of all other choices made for them, why is sex any different?
We choose to do many things for our beloved pets because we personally believe that we have their best interests at heart. I'd like to believe that if the animal doesn't show any clear signs of abuse or mistreatment, that it's placated and content with sharing that part of it's body with it's owner, then it should be a no-brainer.
There are some anecdotal tidbits out there that suggest you can train a dog or a cat or a horse to "ask" for sexual contact by performing some distinctive action or behavior that cannot be misinterpreted as something else or done by accident. There are a couple of issues with that, though. In order to train them to ask for sexual contact, you must first make sexual contact to teach them about the reward they will receive. Then there's also the problem that the animal might not find the sex itself rewarding, but rather just another task they must endure to receive the "real" reward (e.x. a dog really likes the taste of semen, but hates being vaginally penetrated. A horse wants to be left alone for a while, and the human caretaker always becomes passive after sex.)
Even still, I would advocate that it should be no big deal to have sex with your pets as long as they aren't being harmed or mistreated. They shouldn't be seen as living sex toys.