Ethical quandary: I've been helping my brother out over the past few days.
He has 4 springer spaniels. One dog, two bitches and a bitch pup. His problem being that the bitches were in heat, and he needed to keep the dog away from them. So, I ended up with the springers for an evening.
What I did is certainly fence hopping, I guess. But, on the other hand, I had permission to be with the dogs, and the bitches were in season. I already had a good relationship with the hounds.
Should I feel bad? They're not my dogs, but, they want to have sex.
The ironic ending to my story is that my brother ended up shitfaced after a Halloween party and let his dogs mingle. So, she may have been fucked by a dog, too.
On the other hand, pedigree springers go for about $800, so, there's that, too.
I feel it's more like parents vehemently disapproving their adult children's partner.
Dogs as property? Yea you are a dick.
Dogs as sentient beings with sexual drives? Just sating desire.
But, they are. And that's the problem, and why I've been stressing about being a fencehopper.
That is definitely how I felt when I did the deed.
Is that OK, though?
I think you get what I mean. Are you a dick, considering they're your brother's dogs and he'd be incredibly pissed that you fucked them (not to mention disgusted and freaked out)? Yes.
There are a couple facets of this, or angles to look at it from.
Would a normal person be pissed? Yes. Would a zoophile be pissed if you did it behind their back? Probably especially so.
Was I just making the point that they're their own beings with desires or biological drives? Yes.
But does it truly mitigate everything else, re property/pair bonding? Ehh not really.
Am I going to condemn you? No, but this def doesn't make us look good.
Idk, like I've said, the majority of my experience has been with dogs that weren't my own, but they were almost entirely all males, where "consent" and desire is unmistakable.
Fuckin' nuance - how does it work?
LOL. I've seen this thinking a lot on these forums. It's ok for male animals, because they have a hard dick. But since female animals don't have a similar visual sexual marker, sex with them is wrong. 0_o
I believe you basically fully understand me, and you were making the "because hard dick" sarcastically (because I'm sure you know dogs don't get hard until penetrating) about it being a visual cue.
Really my point was that humans still have hang ups about sex, even when they (the animals) don't, and that penetrative males are unmistakeably "not victims" when they are taking the initiative to mount, aim etc while females, in people's minds, are simply the receptive party to male sex, and are ascribed something like victimhood, as if they lack agency...
... When really, females certainly take the initiative to signal readiness, even eagerness to be mounted, to BE that receptive partner https://youtu.be/whO7fIkIMxk Like here, a bitch practically is using a skywriter to signal her want before the male finally gets the message (though he still doesn't satisfy her, ha).
I think the content of what she was putting out was clear: "Sex Wanted". In fact, I've shown that video to non zoos and asked what they thought about the flagging and presentation, cutting out the mounting part, and it's pretty across the board clear that she has her own agency and desires, and wants sex.
Non-zoos said a female dog WANTS sex
Take from that what you will.
There are several factors that make it difficult, for HT's or "Human Tops" such as myself, which translates as "A human who likes to penetrate animals". One is, that the vast majority of Zoos online have male animals as their object of affection and are either HB's or HO's, meaning "Human Bottoms" who want to be penetrated by male animals, or "Human Observers" who want to watch, while a male animal mounts another human. Since male animals sexual interest is easier to see visually, sniffing, licking, dick dropping etc. they get a pass. Even when the male animal "grabs" the one he's mounting, that is considered ok. But for some odd reason, when a HT grabs a female animal, he is "forcing her" and that is viewed as wrong and the HT is often vilified. That females can display sexual interest is common knowledge among those who breed animals to produce offspring. But it seems to be practically unknown to the average person and many Zoo's.
I must ad, that forums like /r/Zoophilia here are more friendly to HT's recently. But there was a time HT's were heavily frowned upon. Thankfully the current crowd are more open minded.
Oh I know, that's why I posted the video.
It seems many zoos want to gloss over female dog sexuality.
I learned cunnilingus with my Labrador, and finding out what made her quiver hump and legs shake.
Females are quite sexual.
You seem to be the only one that just might get it. Because having sex with someone's adult child, or more exactly, a child of legal sexual consent age, still living at home, without their parents consent, is akin to fencehopping if you agree with the definition most adhere to here.
Dogs as property? Legally animals are property. And there are laws regarding how they are to be treated, and their value.
That's fucked up. You shouldn't have done that. You've betrayed his trust. They're his dogs, he has the right to not be comfortable with letting people do them. You're making zoophiles look like assholes when you do this stuff.
Don't do something like this again.
They're not pets, they're working dogs. They're pedigree springers, whose kennel club names are as long as your arm.
They're very clever creatures, probably smarter than your average redditor. Like I said in my first post, if my bro's fuck up in letting the dog among the bitches actually happened, he's going to be about $3000 better off.
He put his dogs in my trust. I did nothing to them that they didn't want. The bitches were in season and I might have had sex with one of them.
She enjoyed it.
Why did you quote my entire comment?
Why post words that you're not willing to stand behind?
What the hell are you even talking about?
Well, you went crazy about the idea that I quoted your entire comment.
And I've made my own decision, that, while it may technically have been fencehopping, I had sex with someone who wanted to have sex with me.
I was just wondering why you did it.
Yea that was silly, lol
This is one of those things that requires a little more thought, unless you're arguing that the dogs cannot act under their own volition and the owner must make their decisions for them. Considering this statement:
It seems that this wasn't a complete case of some selfish desire with no regard to anyone. In fact, the only crime committed was the act of intercourse itself, whereas fencehopping usually involves trespassing. Now, I understand that zoos, more than pretty much any other demographic, sees pets as a part of the family, and that they are dependents. That being said, there is a lot of moral ambiguity in this case related to that, but outright condemnation is not what is needed.
Well put.
If he said he REALLY didn't want them to eat any cooked chicken for some idiotic reason, and OP went on to feed them each a piece of cooked chicken, that would be wrong too.
This is a fallacy. The brother did not say anything regarding this. As far as we can tell OP treated the dogs exactly how his brother wanted. This is not a valid argument.
What are you talking about? The part where OP says his brother gave him permission to "be with" the dogs? He didn't mean it the way you're thinking. He meant he literally had permission to be with, as in be in close proximity to, the dogs. The story wouldn't make any sense if he meant he had permission to have sex with the dogs. He wouldn't have ANY reason to use the phrase "fence hopping" if that was the case.
Exactly. Nothing more, nothing less. No negative to any activity except letting them be with another dog. Your argument implies that OP went directly against the express wishes of his brother, which he did not. OP might have done something with the dogs his brother might not have liked, but it is not the same as the situation outlined above.
What are you saying? That it's okay to do something if someone never tells you they wouldn't like it?
What is the fallacy you're thinking it is, precisely?
The only fallacy I can see is with the (reworded, to simplify) assertion: "he didn't say NOT to have sex with them, therefore sex with them is okay." Why do I say this? Because there may be other limits dictating whether sex with them is okay. It's been too long for me to name exactly which fallacy this is but it uses faulty or at least incomplete logic to reach a conclusion.
If I misunderstand, and the OP got the owner's permission, then of course this is moot... but I take from comments throughout this thread that is not the case.
It's a flawed argument from analogy. It associates taking action in spite of someone's wishes with taking action without knowledge of someone's wishes. The implied intent is different in these cases, which matters when discussing ethics. Feeding dogs chicken bones, for example, seems different when considering the cases of someone doing it in spite of being told not to than the person who does so without knowledge of the impact of their actions. While the end result may be the same, the intent is not.
So it would be okay of me to go into my friend's room at night and jizz on their face while they were asleep? I don't know if they would be okay with that or not, so it must be okay.
Thanks for the false dilemma. One can still disapprove of actions that were not premeditated. Premeditation implies malintent, and that is why I brought this point up. In your hypothetical, OP would have malintent, whereas the information that was given indicates an absence thereof. This does not mitigate the impact of the act itself, but also does not add a sinister bent.
I didn't false dilemma anything. None of my friends have ever told me "I don't want you to jizz on my face in my sleep", so I'd still be innocent if I did that.
False dilemma: Presenting two opposing options as the only two options.
Option 1: Disapprove of the action
Option 2: Always approve
Also are you even reading my comments?
Where did I say you can only disapprove of an action or always approve of it? I didn't say that anywhere. That has nothing to do with this.
9gagosophy: someone reads a list on 9gag and applies a single, isolated element of this list onto a real life, non linear, multidimensional question...
Keep in mind that it´s most likely the owner simply "forgot" to prohibit any sexual contact with his dogs because bestiality is so uncommon and under the radar of 99,99% of average people, the owner simply could not imagine someone doing such stuff when given the slightest chance. That´s exactly why the original zeta rules read: "Never (NEVER) do something with other people´s animals unless you have the explicit and unmistakable approval of the animal´s owner.
The original zeta rules were made more than 20 years ago. If only people would realize that these rules aren´t there to keep them from having "fun"...these rules are no prison, they are the only way to improve our public image as zoophiles.
Well said, wise 30-30.
In the strictest sense that's a decent observation. The point I think he's trying to make is nevertheless that the OP knew then and knows now how the owner would feel. If this is true, how much of a material difference is there between the implied intent in a case when either option is "in spite of" someone's wishes" but in one case those wishes are verbalized and in the other case they're simply "almost certainly the case" alongside active avoidance of clarification? (e.g. a closeted pyromaniac housesitting, and then expressing with incredulity, "he didn't tell me NOT to burn down the house..." - again not a perfect analogy but I think you get the point.)
Or even more simplistically (and thus harder to defend, but easier to follow), if the wishes are known and a decision is made contrary to them, does it matter whether the wishes were verbalized?
Or even more simplistically, don't mess with other people's animals and a large swath of potential ethical dilemma is avoided.
Also, I think whether the owner is a zoo themselves is a huge part of it.
I said above, if it were a zoo that considered the bitches their own lover(s), it would be terrible to sneak around to fuck their loved one(s)
For non zoos, yes they'd be incredibly pissed and freaked out, but it's not the breach of what they might consider a monogamous relationship. Which is the question... Kind of... Or maybe that's just the conversation we've drifted to.
Jealousy? Most animals can't relate. Those that can, need visual proof. I have seen it in some mares, but animal jealousy pales in comparison to the human variety, which is mostly a learned emotion.
Exactly. Because even zoos here, are suggesting that while it's ok for young humans to do the same, IE have sex without getting their parents permission first. It's not ok if an animal is involved. Because? The whole consent issue again? That animals that are adults aren't really adults and can't consent to sex?
So every highschooler who wants to have sex with an S.O. must first get permission from their lovers parents? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be the same as fencehopping?
OFC you are entitled to your opinion. If you think every kid in that situation is a scumbag coward for not asking permission, it's your right. But I'd still LOL.
I don't believe what you did was fencehopping. What you did was disregard the relationship between your brother and his dogs. While no one was harmed, and no crime save intercourse occurred, you did interact with them more intimately than you feel your brother gave you permission to. This an interesting topic that is not explored often. The consensus is generally that this is not acceptable behavior, but you will not be entirely vilified.
The definition of "fencehopping" is a little ambiguous, though. Some people feel "going behind someone's back to have sex with their animals" is precisely the definition of fencehopping, and either way it's the kind of story that, if/when exposed, harms the general opinion of many people... even those of us who know how to keep it in our pants.
I was even wondering if this was a legitimate post. Aren't spaniels a bit small for most people? Hm.
It's interesting how often consensus is not based upon reason, but upon the thinking of the herd. So in your opinion every person under the age of 18, living in their parents home, cannot have sex without asking their parents permission? 0_o
Springer Spaniels seem a little small to me, on average (50 lbs). But I'm assuming the best case scenario, where they and you both enjoyed yourselves and no one was hurt in any way.
From a strictly utilitarian point of view, you did nothing wrong, because everyone directly involved had a good time and it's no one else's business. I suppose one could argue over a possible decrease in resale value, but that requires wholesale acceptance of animals as property with less regard for their own desires than for something like $400 in damages.
You did, however, betray your brother's trust in some sense, because while your explicit job was to keep the dog from the bitches, there was some implication of keeping them from harm, which to many people includes preventing any and all lustful advances, not just those that allow pregnancy. Regarding your duties toward your family, you screwed up. In a harmless way, perhaps, but still...
In legal terms (depending on your jurisdiction, of course), there may have been no crime committed, but you still could be sued for conversion, which is when someone's property is used in a way that denies their property rights or is otherwise wrongful. Any country with that kind of tort law, and especially the sue-happy U.S., is a bad place for fence-hopping. My overall opinion is don't do it, but if you can't resist the temptation, make absolutely sure you don't hurt anyone and don't get caught.
So you're suggesting sex causes harm?
So in your opinion, before you have sex with a girlfriend living in her parents house (or boyfriend, whatever) you must ask the parents permission first?
No... thanks for ignoring the directly following clause:
I was talking about his duties as perceived by his brother and the larger community around them. To a lot of people, that breach of trust is the basis for all moral evils. That's what deontological ethics is about.
No. But (to bring this hypothetical closer to the actual situation) if you were a bodyguard hired by someone's parents to keep some wayward lover away from them, and you have sex with them while doing that, I don't think you've done anything wrong, assuming no long term harm resulted and they enjoyed it. By the exact words of the parents' orders, you didn't break your contract either. But I can't blame their parents for feeling wronged if they found out, and it would be foolish to completely endorse an action that is arguably on the list of things that they thought having a bodyguard would prevent from happening.
I'm guessing you were angry at my post for having defended the other side a little bit, and responded in haste. Next time, please read the whole thing and take a moment to process it before responding. As I said, I don't endorse fencehopping for practical reasons, and I understand why others would feel wronged when someone has sex with their companions and they can't find out whether it was consensual or not.
I wasn't angry actually. Just pointing out that sex causes no harm, if done with a sexually mature adult, and there are no tell tale signs of sex occurring after the fact. You seemed to suggest that not only could someone easily tell their pet had, had sex, but that they'd have the presence of mind to actually closely examine their vulva, anus etc, to make sure they looked "normal", which is nutty as fuck. Non-Zoos never bother to examine their pets genitals unless they are OCD or something. Most "normal" people consider those parts "dirty" and avoid them.
Having sex with another person who is living under their parents roof, is a calculated risk, that most people are willing to take. Only crazy people ask for the parents permission, because the answer is going to be NO. So they do it and take their chances of being caught. And some are caught. It's not uncommon for a boyfriend to be discovered, and the lovers father, or brothers to beat the shit out of him. Not uncommon at all. So are we to assume that every kid who does this is a scumbag, coward, etc? That is really for you to decide, but it's VERY common. And replacing the GF with a pet is no different.
Of course, the best situation is for you to have your own pet, and everyone should strive to have their own, because that is the safest situation for everyone. Just as everyone should be married, and at a young age, so they have someone to share their physical desires with. Even the bible says so, if you're a Christian.
The only difference is the perception, and the risk that comes with it. That's all. We agree with each other completely, but I think we're talking past each other. These situations really aren't different whether we're talking about a human or a dog: when it comes to mature adults, consent is consent, and it's no one else's business.
I don't condemn the people who fencehop, just the act itself. Even in some of the seemingly most outrageous examples, there may be good intentions and proper precautions at every step. It comes down to the PR problems it causes in the larger society, and the perceived violation of trust with friends and families in specific cases, like the dogsitting one here. Assuming no sadism is involved, it is at worst a misguided override of reason by lust.
If you want to argue that people who feel wronged by a fencehopper are incorrect, you would have to argue against their views of the animals as either their furry children or their property, and get them to consider their pets or livestock as, in some sense, equally deserving of the right to sexual autonomy. I think they should have that right, to some extent, but I know of no good way to convince the majority of that.
If you came inside his bitches, your sperm may have made them temporarily infertile if it got inside the eggs and the genetic material failed to combine, saving them from an unwanted pregnancy. It's supposed to work similarly the other way as well for women who have sex with male dogs. Let us know if there's any puppies or not!
That said, I'm against messing with other people's dogs on principle, but i can't condemn it without being a hypocrite because when I was younger I gave several blowjobs and handjobs to various family dogs and friends dogs I was watching at the time.
Doesn't work, sorry. :P At least one of my friends' dogs would never have born if that worked!
"if it got inside the eggs"
Just saying. Dog sperm has much higher erm... dog egg penetration ratio than human sperm. Still, as far as I understand it, it can technically happen.
You shouldn't feel bad for the sex, given that you did show appropriate respect for what they want and what they're comfortable with.
But you should feel bad for doing it without the knowledge and approval of their primary caretaker. Even when he doesn't explicitly says it I'm pretty sure that he implicitly trusts you not to have sexual contact with them when he allows you to be with them.
If sex with dogs was more widespread and less of a taboo and he would have been aware that this was something you could do, do you think he would have told you not to do it?
And I assume you want this to be a secret, so I'm going to say:
What the fuck man, this is a publicly accessible and searchable forum. What do you think how many people have this particular combination of dogs with this particular number of bitches in heat right now, who gave them to you recently under this specific circumstances and let exactly this sort of thing happen at Halloween? Do you think if he happened to get to read your post by chance he wouldn't immediately know exactly who you are?
I'm pretty confident he doesn't circulate in these kinds of circles.
Regardless, I was just stressing about the ethics of the night I spent with his dog.
And I have to say again, that, to him, they're just working dogs. They stay in kennels, outside, for most of the year. They were only in a house because he was in town and going out for his own reasons.
Thanks for all the comments, by the way. I was being bugged at the thought that I'd done something I shouldn't...
I've kind of come to the conclusion that she was horny as fuck, as was I. She really wanted a piece of the dog next door that wanted to do her, but he wasn't available. So I used my penis instead.
I didn't hurt her, and we both had good sexy time.
Or, essentially, we just had casual sex. we both wanted it, and a good time was had by all.
I think a lot of the naysayers are not thinking this through. I'd like to know, in what way it's different, for the following to take place VS what you did. In state X the legal age of sexual consent is 16. But you are not considered an adult till age 18. In this state lives a 17 year old guy and 17 year old girl. They want to have sex. MUST this 17 year old guy ask this girls parents permission before having sex with her? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be "akin to fence hopping"?
I still don't understand this thinking. So in your opinion, every school age child, living in their parents home, even tho of legal sexual consent age, must ask permission of their parents before having sex with a S.O?
It's not about the sex but more like this implicit breach of trust thing. It's what I meant with "If sex with dogs was more widespread and less of a taboo and he would have been aware that this was something you could do, do you think he would have told you not to do it?"
But I do understand your point. In movies/series and art we have many stories of young people secretly sneaking out from their disapproving parents to meet with their lovers and usually we are sympathetic.
Maybe my feeling that with animals it is still a bit different aren't entirely based on logic, I don't know.
That's the thing. Life is risky. Nothing risked nothing gained. We do many things for which we should ask permission, but don't. We also break many small laws, chancing that we won't be caught or no one will notice. It's all part of learning how to be human.
Breed and the price humans attribute to them makes no difference in my opinion. It's all arbitrary.
In a way the issue comes down to how you and your friend see animals. Me, I see my dogs abs housemates. We are equals that cohabitate. I provide for them, and they listen to and show me affection and companionship. Some people see their pets as their kids, or property. In those cases it would be an awkward situation to engage with someone else's dog. In the latter instances the dog isn't recognized as their own person with rights.
Then there's what you did, which is humored her. The dog was in heat, and if it's like what I've seen in cats, she was miserable being kept away from males. So in a way, you probably appeased her instincts a bit
Don't feel bad. Your brother will never know and I'm sure the pooch enjoyed your attentions.
Offer to "dog sit" anytime for free, saying you really enjoy their company and you may get another chance. If you've bred a female who was in heat, so she's used to the experience, when she's out of heat she'll still have sex with you.
IMO what you did was not "fencehopping" because I go by the old definition, which was to trespass on some strangers property, to have sex with their animals. THAT is very dangerous. But doing what you did was fine. Relax.
Thank you. You've helped me work the whole thing that was bugging me out.
Essentially, she wanted a shag, and so did I.
We scratched each others itches, I guess.
so if I invited you into my home, you would have your way with my dogs at the first opportunity?
I wouldn't, no.
But would you worry if they wanted to have sex with me?
I think that would be difficult, because sex with dogs, at least for me (because I'm so large) takes preperation. There simply would be no time. Now if you had to go away on a trip, and either asked me to check in on your dog every day, or even wanted me to keep your dog in my home while you were gone, THEN I'd be able to try it.
With horses it's different. Because they are never in the house, but out in the barn, stable etc. So after you are done visiting with your friends, you can go out to the barn and spend time with their horses. I've done this with several friends horses and the friend never wants to come out to the barn with me, because I've yet to meet anyone who actually likes grooming their horses just for fun. And ofc after grooming them I have sex with them. The next day the friend sees their horse has been combed, scrubbed free of dirt and mud, all burrs removed from their mane and tail etc, and they are happy. And btw, every friend thinks it's cute that their horses like me so much, and think I'm some sort of horse whisperer, which in a way, I am.
And btw about dogs, there has only been one friend that I've dog sat for, and they always bring her to my place. And ofc I have sex with her. And she loves me still. Her owners know she loves me by how she reacts to me or they'd never bring her over.
You see, what you are doing is bending the definition "permission to be with the animal" to suit your opportunistic way of thinking. Regardless of what you may think, the behavior you describe is akin to fence hopping. Even if the animal is brought to you under your care, if you have sexual relations with that animal without full disclosure to the owner, you are "fence hopping."
It doesnt matter that the animals in question enjoyed it, you need to respect the relationship between the animals and their owners, even if the owners are oblivious to the animals sexual needs.
It sounds to me that you would do this even with another zoophiles animals. Now a lot of zoos feel that is worse than having your way with a non zoos animals but I argue they are both bad. You should respect the animal/owner relationship and if you desire to enjoy sexual activities with an animal, make sure the owner is fully aware of your intentions.
If you are too cowardly to ask, then you have no business sticking your dick in anything and there is no way you could justify it. The last person I found out was taking my dog behind my back had to have reconstructive facial surgery. If you use the forums you probably know him.
That is YOUR definition of fence hopping. Not mine. You are free to have your own opinion of course. Definitions change over time, back and forth, and different people and different societies agree on different terms. You are free to practice the sort of morality you wish, as I am free to practice mine. In my morality, what I do is between the animal and me, and no one else. The animals I choose to have sexual relations with, are all adults and can and do consent to have and sometimes not, have sex with me. This has nothing to do with their other human "caretakers/owners". Of course, if I was caught, there would be trouble for me, and I accept the risk. It's the same risk other people take having sex with non-adults (such as when you are in Highschool. do you ask your GF's dad if it's ok to have sex with her? Even if she's legal age?) Also people cheating on their SO's, or who pay for sex, or etc.
I don't think there'd be a problem with another zoo, because another zoo would recognize I was a zoo, (even if I said nothing) or never let me have alone time with their pet. I wouldn't. Not because I'd be afraid of them having sex with the pet, but because I'd be afraid they might not be as gentle as I am.
I don't know who you refer to. As I'm only on here sporadically, I must have missed the thread on you punching someone's lights out. Link plz?
And btw, honestly, you come across as a. Let me put it as nicely as I can. Non-adult, who has no real world experience.