What female dog breeds is it possible for a guy to have penetrative sex with? (vaginally)(self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-12-30 23:05:10 by [deleted]
[deleted]
Nowix 1 point on 2015-12-31 00:03:07
As far as my thoughts go: Find the breed that suits your lifestyle. Find the breed you love and are capable of taking care of. Don't pick a dog just because you want to have sex with them, that's the wrong way around.
[deleted] -9 points on 2015-12-31 00:32:26
[deleted]
[deleted] -1 points on 2015-12-31 00:43:02
[deleted]
[deleted] -2 points on 2015-12-31 04:21:50
[deleted]
Emilie_Likes_Cookies 22 points on 2015-12-31 03:39:52
When the random button takes me to pages that are awkward for me...
Gackles 2 points on 2015-12-31 05:08:29
Same here. I.. I don't want to be here anymore.
yelikedags 0 points on 2015-12-31 05:25:52
Both of you? Hm.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
Emilie_Likes_Cookies 6 points on 2015-12-31 06:42:25
Lol, I am replying safely from my inbox
rasterwolf -1 points on 2015-12-31 05:20:11
LOL at the "random button" people hahahahaha.
I heard Irish Setters are pretty dumb. Just sayin'
Also, its more an individual thing more than by breed.
yelikedags 0 points on 2015-12-31 05:27:03
Haha right!
"Idk how I got here!"
Oooook
WeAreDifferentCanines 1 point on 2015-12-31 05:33:57
Irish Setter sounds about right.
When it gets to sex with dogs, or animals overall, you say that Labrador is the minimum size you want to have sex with. Everything below can result in injury.
fantasmoslam 10 points on 2015-12-31 06:13:53
Random subreddit of the day. Ooh sweet cthulhu you want to do what to a dog?! I'm aching to know how you justify this isn't animal abuse.
30-30amator equae -8 points on 2015-12-31 06:54:55
Well, that´s quite easy: an animal does not make the same distinction between "animal" and "human"...for them, a human CAN be just another member of the herd/pack.It all depends on how much you are willing to become one of them, adopting THEIR behavior, learning to read THEIR body language. For an animal, mating with a human CAN be no "abuse" when it´s done according to the animal´s natural mating ritual. My mare even "invites" me to mate with her by doing her natural mating routine she would do with one of her own species.
It all depends on how much the human is willing to transgress his "humanity", how much he is willing to fill out the position of a natural mating partner of the animal´s species.
Note: I don´t want this to be understood as a general absolution for anyone feeling the urge to fuck animals. But you have to realize that some individuals exist who are literally made for transgressing the species boundaries...born zoophiles.I don´t know where it comes from, I can´t tell you why it is so, but it is a fact that people like us zoophiles always existed. In the animal kingdom, cross species sexuality is common and since humans are animals too, it should be clear that it is perfectly "natural" for some(!) individuals to feel attracted to another species not their own (although...well, that would make me digress and produce a wall of text you don´t want to read^^)...
Deep emotional love isn´t human exclusive...other species can feel it too. May be a little hard to swallow for someone believing in human exceptionalism and superiority of mankind...but we zoos are like Galileo Galilei, we represent a concept that all life is equal, thus sawing onto mankind´s self given throne as "the salt of the earth", " nature´s best creation" etc. Like Galilei, we attack the common misconception of our universe built around humans; as Galilei, we destroy mankind´s illusion of being special. The terracentric "weltbild" fell and was replaced by the heliocentric...we zoos wil make the anthropocentric "weltbild" fall. All life is equal, a fact even science is researching more and more. Animals are closer to humans than mankind was willing to believe...they CAN love, they CAN be interested in mating with a biped. It all depends on how much your own weltbild will be able to accept the higher truth that all life is equal. If you do it with an animal "the human way", then we can talk about abuse. But if certain individuals are able to do it with an animal the way their own species would do it, I really can´t see why someone would misinterpret this as abuse. For an animal, it doesn´t matter what species his/her companion belongs to...they aren´t fooling themselves like mankind does. They see the truth...all life is equal. It´s only stupid, self delusional humans insisting on being something better than one of these "filthy animals"...
fantasmoslam 5 points on 2015-12-31 08:20:10
So, I guess I need to get a bit of clarification from you, because none of what you typed there translates to my brain and its "terracentric" understanding of how human/animal relationships work.
You say that animals are capable of "love" in the same sense as humans? As in romantic, transcendent, heart going pitter pat love?
I'm not refuting your assertion, I'd just like to know how you KNOW this. Since you've obviously put a lot of thought into this response, perhaps you can find the time to explain how you come to this conclusion.
Would I be incorrect in guessing that since I was not "born a zoophile" I won't have the same perspective as you, even if you rationally explain it to me? You say "deep emotional love" in reference to animal feelings and existential experiences, but what evidence other than personal and anecdotal has lead you to believe this? I am genuinely curious, so please do not take offense if my questions are clumsy.
ursusem 2 points on 2015-12-31 08:57:17
Good questions.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-12-31 16:04:15
I'll give my own answers since I think these are actually good, fair questions. I'll try to avoid as much emotional anecdote as I can, so this might sound a bit cold and overly-logical.
As far as love goes, whether or not animals can truly love us is a question people who live and work with animals have been asking forever. Most people who have pets will probably say that they do, in some form. I have a different view of this than 30-30, and probably others have their own perspectives as well. I do believe that animals can experience an emotion that is similar to what we describe as love, and can feel this towards humans. There is actually evidence of this in dogs in that when they interact with their humans, their bodies release the same hormones associated with feelings of love and affection. So, the basic feeling is probably there.
Where I differ from some zoos is that I am not certain if animals have feelings of romance/romantic attraction or if this is a human concept. Part of the trouble is that this is a concept that is difficult to define in humans, let alone animals who have different breeding systems and social structures. Describing what it is always sounds awkward, cold, and incomplete, but I think romantic attraction can be at least partially described as attraction towards non-physical aspects of someone, like personality, in a way that differs from friendship. How it's different depends on the person, but it usually involves preferring the target(s) over others and wanting different kinds of interaction and contact with them.
As far as non-humans go, what I do know from experience and anecdotes is that animals show preferences for individuals and will seek out/allow/deny different kinds of interaction and contact depending on the person. Are these evidence of romantic attraction from animals, or are the romantic feelings only felt by the human? I don't believe we can answer this question at this time without relying on anecdote and personal philosophical belief. In my opinion, I don't think that it cheapens someone's relationship with an animal or invalidates someone's feelings if the animal doesn't, or is incapable of experiencing romantic feelings.
I think you are correct that not being a zoophile will give you a different perspective. I think that dry, purely rational explanations are great, but they are incomplete in describing the human-animal bond. I think this is an area where experience is just as valuable, if not more, than just facts, though those facts can enrich the experience.
fantasmoslam 3 points on 2015-12-31 20:07:38
I appreciate your response, thank you.
For me this all boils down to what I know and understand of animal motivation and cognizance, which is largely limited to dogs, so I'll be using them as my example.
Dogs and man share a parallel evolution of sorts in regards to social interaction and motivation. Ancient dogs learned rightly that if they stayed near humans they might get fed, so thus the gourmet began. From a scientific standpoint, the pheromones you're referring to haven't been observed to have an effect of humans. Humans produce "anthropines", according to one theory, but even then there is very little conclusive evidence that our biological imperatives are driven or even significantly affected by them. If this were true you'd see a far greater body of research into how to manipulate them. The evidence is at best inconclusive, so for me that remains largely a moot point considering the variables involved in proving that humans are even affected by them in the same way.
Emotionally, dogs are pretty complex, and this has been proven time and again with instances of dogs performing all manner of bravery to protect their pack. This is largely accepted as instinctual behavior combined with a learned and conditioned response to show affection. My ugly shih tzu knows that if he licks my hand I'll scratch his head and give him affection. He also knows that of I leave the room that any chances of belly rubs go out the window.
Dogs also are not capable of experiencing the passage of time in the same manner that we do, this is because dogs aren't self aware. Not only aren't they self aware, they aren't even aware of the fact that they're not self aware, which brings me to my next point.
Dogs function on a need to eat basis. 90% of their motivation is food based. I train dogs as a hobby and as a secondary source of income, so to some degree I have some level of authority to speak on this topic. The debate rages on training methods and what is acceptable, but the universal constant is that reward based training is the most effective in achieving results.
To my knowledge, you can train a dog to do just about anything, which brings me to my final line of inquiry.
I've been training dogs for quite some time, and for a great deal of reasons, be it behavioral or recreational. I teach people the methods to train their dogs to produce a desired behavior. Considering what I know about canine behavior, motivation, and instinct I'm pretty certain that dogs make no distinction between human and dog when it comes to their heat cycle. A person such as yourself can choose to interpret this as a level of attraction on par with flirting or what have you, but dogs just aren't aware in the same manner.
If you want to train your animal to be receptive to sexual advances then I'm absolutely sure with the right amount of patience and coercion you could achieve the results you want. That being said, what you've got essentially is canine prostitution as the learned behaviors are there in order to illicit a response, which is usually for food or affection. Dogs love belly rubs, that much is true, but there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest that they enjoy sex recreationally. The same cannot be said for dolphins though, but I don't know shit about cetaceans.
I appreciate your response a lot, but I remain convinced that at the end of the day zoophiles will look for just about any justification to legitimize their behavior. Be it taboo or not, I don't see any reason to believe that this isn't exploitative to the animal involved as they just don't have the mental capacity to understand exactly what is happening in the same level as the human involved. At best this is Pavlovian sexual response, at worst this is sexual coercion.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2015-12-31 22:35:49
forgive me if I got the wrong end of the stick (heh) but your post seems to imply that you think zoos need to train their dogs to have sex with them, but you also say
Considering what I know about canine behavior, motivation, and instinct I'm pretty certain that dogs make no distinction between human and dog when it comes to their heat cycle.
At this point sexual coercion can be ruled out as we wouldn't be forcing the dog to do anything. I dont think implying this a pavlovian response is applicable either unless you count sexual pleasure as a reward in which case I see no problem as thats simply just a case of the dog doing something to get what it wants (equivalent to pressing a button and receiving food).
dogs dont need to be trained for sex, they are innately sexual beings. All we are doing is obliging them in a way which mutually aligns with our own self interests.
fantasmoslam 1 point on 2015-12-31 23:21:34
Sexual coercion would not be ruled out due to no distinction being made. The point is that dogs that live in homes with humans are under the impression that they belong to a pack. The distinction here is that humans can make the distinction and that they can take advantage of their animals in that manner.
You're misusing the term sexual being to fit your narritive. A female dog will illicit sexual contact from a make dog for the sole purpose of reproduction. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that male dogs desire anything more than to reproduce.
By saying you're simply obliging them is disingenuous.
You can excuse your behavior however you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're manipulating an animal for the sole purpose of your own sexual gratification. A female dog expects to have puppies after being mounted by a male dog, and since you as a human cannot fulfill that instinctual biological imperative, that means your "reciprocation" of "advances" is disingenuous, and therefore manipulation.
There's no rational reason to do this other than mental illness. I read that the "zoo community" wishes people would lend the same sympathies to them as the lgbtq community, I see trans people thrown in that mix as well. Trans people have gender based body dysphoria, which is a real thing. So if you say that being born this way is real, then "zoos" are born biologically different, and by that measure are treatable. I think further testing is warranted, because clearly help is needed.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 2 points on 2015-12-31 23:55:58
Sorry if I'm spamming you or anything, I just thought I'd respond to some comments made here, namely these:
Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that male dogs desire anything more than to reproduce.
A female dog expects to have puppies after being mounted by a male dog
I'd like to point out that there's no evidence suggesting this either. Understanding reproduction and having intent to reproduce suggests a rather complicated thought process and some knowledge I don't believe dogs have. There would need to be an active desire for offspring, an understanding that certain acts result in offspring (and for dogs, who cannot understand that they are being punished for something they did a few minutes ago, figuring that something they did a couple months ago resulted in puppies seems unlikely), and a willingness to complete that act with no other reward than offspring in the future. For animals with poor scope of time and cause and effect, it seems more reasonable to think that there is some immediate reward, likely pleasure, for mating.
To address the comments about it being an illness, it could be considered that since it is a deviation from what is considered normal and acceptable. However, I don't think it's inherently harmful or presents an immediate danger to the person or others. If someone wants to seek treatment, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. Similarly, if someone if doing things like trespassing or injuring animals (either intentionally or not seeking help if an accident occurs) they need to be stopped and given help.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2016-01-01 08:08:02
nice, I was just about to write almost the exact same thing.
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-12-31 23:29:58
Thanks for the response back, I enjoy seeing other points of view on the topic so I can challenge my own.
I think we may be referring to something slightly different in regards to pheromones/hormones- I was referring to the evidence for hormones like oxytocin having effects on dogs' ability to bond with humans.
I also have some experience in training dogs through positive methods and I try to research canine behavior as much as I can. I actually agree that an animal in heat is no more 'flirting' with a human than they would be to another animal. I would suggest though that, at least with dogs, they can differentiate between a human and another dog, since they seem to be able to with other interactions. Whether or not this affects how they act when in heat, I wouldn't be sure or make claims about, though I'd suspect this varies depending on their socialization.
I also agree that dogs don't have the same understanding of sex as humans do. At the very least, I doubt they understand the biology of it, the possible risks, and absolutely don't know about the weird social and spiritual associations humans put on it. I'll discuss this a bit more later.
However, I'd argue that they probably experience sexual contact as pleasurable and that they seem to seek out sexual stimulation. As far as conclusive studies about the evidence for recreational sex goes, I'm not aware of any, but I don't think that this means that it doesn't happen, or at the very least that they don't derive pleasure from it.
Dogs of both sexes are well known to engage in masturbation with themselves or objects as well as engage in play with other animals that involves mounting and rubbing their genitalia against a partner. This behavior is frequently attributed to 'dominance', but I'm highly skeptical of that as an explanation. There is also a behavior similar to humping, but with the difference of there being penetration (but rarely a tie, why this is, I could only speculate) involved. These behaviors are also known to be self-reinforcing despite not necessarily involving food or affection.
Whether or not this means they have sex for pleasure is debatable, but I think it at least suggests there might be pleasure involved from sexual stimulation. I personally believe that if an animal receives pleasure from something and seeks out/performs an action for it, as long as it isn't overly dangerous, that it isn't wrong for the human to participate, encourage the action, or get pleasure from it.
For the record though, I don't condone coercion using food to illicit a sexual response, and I would never use it myself. I fortunately don't see or hear of it used in the circles I frequent either. If a dog isn't interested, they aren't interested and that should be respected. Imo, this goes for breeding, semen collection, and artificial insemination as well. This is slightly inconsistent with my other beliefs, but I think it's for the best.
This is where things get to be more controversial both with zoos and outsiders, and it's the issue of understanding sex on a higher level than just "feels good." Even if we assume that all animals will seek out sexual stimulation for pleasure, humans still have more understanding of why it is happening, what the outcome is, and what, if any, risks are involved. We also can't explicitly inform the animal of this, and this, understandably makes many uncomfortable with the idea. I was actually opposed for a long time because of this, myself.
This, however, is not exclusive to sexual acts, but is something inherent to all human-animal interactions. While some of these interactions may be vital (like surgery), others are either completely unnecessary (maybe taking goofy pictures or conformation showing), or have less risky alternatives (like hiking vs. walking around the block). Ultimately it is up to humans to asses risk and do what they can to minimize or avoid risk in any activities they involve animals in. As long as an unnecessary action doesn't inherently involve abuse or inflict pain and fear, whether or not an action/activity is justified I think is a personal choice.
I think that because animals don't/can't assign the social/spiritual meaning to sex that humans have, they wouldn't consider it to be different than other activities we might do with them. Because of this, I don't consider sexual activity to be significantly different compared to other interactions with animals, and so I don't find it to be inherently more exploitative either. I understand though that this is a personal belief, and it's one that not everyone, even other zoophiles, will share or like.
Ultimately personal beliefs and limits are what it comes down to. Everyone has their own beliefs about what is and isn't okay to do with animals based around risk, benefit, animal behavior, and some anthropomorphism. For some, sports are an unjustifiable risk, others believe they are excellent way to bond with and exercise their pet. Some enjoy extravagantly grooming their pets, others think that it's pointless and potentially cruel. And of course, some people think it's okay to have sexual contact with animals, others don't.
ThundercuntIII 2 points on 2015-12-31 11:05:34
They should put you down.
Ibo-acid 1 point on 2016-01-20 20:07:30
You're overreacting a bit, don't you think?
Take a deep breath, as well as take a step back and try to be less emotional about it.
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-01-20 20:19:36
[deleted]
Ibo-acid 1 point on 2016-01-20 20:42:43
Silly me...for a second there, I believed that the both of us are rational adults which could have a serious conversation about a serious topic but I was wrong.
So I'm just going to politely disagree with you and hope that you never get your hands on a firearm.
TotesMessenger 6 points on 2015-12-31 11:13:53
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.\(Info ^/ Contact)
30-30amator equae 4 points on 2015-12-31 06:14:56
As if it only depends on your dick fitting into your dog....sigh
Hey, listen...you don´t get a dog like you are getting a travelpussy, you know?
What if your doggie turns out to be not into having sex with you, even if your size would be suitable for her? Have you thought about that? Love is NOT a thing you can measure by your penis size. It depends on many other factors, like character of the dog etc.
Sadly, outsiders found your thread in here, so again we zoos are perceived as mindless fucking machines with no heart...and I have to add that a quick google search could have given all the answers you need regarding sizes....just compare yourself to a male dog of your "favourite" breed; if a male dog fits into a female, you probably will fit into her when size of your genital is comparable. Easy as fuck, isn´t it?
You´re putting an image out there I am really ashamed of...you claim to love, but all that interests you is if your dick will fit...for me, it´s totally understandable that most outsiders will evaluate that as another proof how self centered and egoistic we zoos are...
IAmAZoophileCanine 1 point on 2015-12-31 06:52:57
I feel the same way. I'd be extremely embarrassed to be associated with this community if discussions/questions like OPs aren't considered entirely inappropriate.
IAmAZoophileCanine 3 points on 2015-12-31 07:49:04
I've recently come out to myself as a zoophile and am looking for my first animal lover.
"Oh hey, I'm a zoophile-- I guess I'd better get a dog!" is a really, really dangerous way to think. Exploring and coming to terms with your sexuality can be a difficult process for anyone-- and it's guaranteed to be way, way more difficult to people who identify with a sexual orientation that's overwhelmingly seen as taboo, disgusting, and wrong. Like, say, zoophilia.
If you want your relationship with your dog to be safe and healthy for both of you (WHICH YOU SHOULD), then you need to ensure that your dog can always trust you. Which means you need to ensure that your feelings towards your dog (or certain parts of yourself) aren't going to change someday.
...so, first of all, slow down. I'm sure the idea of being with a dog is really appealing to you right now, but you seem blinded to the other parts of being with a dog.
I'm finally ready to live as who I am with a gorgeous, loving female canine who will love me as much as i love her.
...like, say, the fact that a dog you own is its own being who isn't just going to behave exactly like you hope it will all the time. What if the dog you get isn't as 'loving' as you had hoped she'd be? What if she seems to prefer having her own personal space, and feels uncomfortable when you get close to her? Is that something you'd be able to handle? Is that something you had even considered as a possibility?
I want a big dog, but I also want to be able to vaginally penetrate her. Is this possible with any breeds that are big enough and comfortable enough to fit at least part of me inside? I want to make her feel worshipped, and I would love your guys' thoughts.
Why is the ability to have vaginal sex with your potential dog so important to you? I don't think it's wrong for someone to think this way, but I don't feel like you actually understand your own motivations here.
Why do you think having sex with a dog will make that dog feel 'worshiped'? Why do you want to make the dog feel that way-- if a dog even can feel that way? Is it something you want to happen for the dog's sake, or for your own?
Dogs aren't people. They don't behave like people, and they don't think like people. Anthropomorphizing dogs is tempting, and pretty much everyone does it all the time-- but it's something you have to be extremely careful about when the dog is in a vulnerable position (like, say, when they're in a sexual relationship with a human). Your post seems to suggest that you aren't aware of this yet.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be thinking about getting a dog right now. Pretty much everything about this post suggests to me that you aren't prepared for what a relationship with a dog is really like.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 7 points on 2015-12-31 09:02:57
God this thread sucks. OP is apparently 16 years old and doesnt even masturbate (apparently...).
Youre not a zoo OP, youre just a horny teenager. Go have a wank before you even think about calling yourself a zoo and waaay before you even think about getting a dog. Also your parents would be pissed if you bought a dog back.
Also when talking about nofapping
I'm a virgin and I don't want to mess up how I should view women,
that kinda backfired, lol.
Edit: after reading more of your posting history, OP, you need professional help, not a dog.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2015-12-31 12:07:24
After checking his post history, I could not agree more on your last sentence...
zootrashcandoggy doodle dandy 1 point on 2015-12-31 16:34:20
As others have said, I think it's too early for you to decide to get a canine partner, especially while living with your parents. Right now, I think it's good for you to explore your feelings and sexuality, but you should do it in ways that are safer for both you and your potential partner.
Try volunteering with dogs (but, and this should go without saying, but don't interact with them sexually if they aren't yours) to get a feeling of if you really like them, or if you just like the idea of them. Also try to do more research on zoophilia itself. The subreddit here is a decent place to browse and get an idea of what zoophilia is.
Finally, if you do decide to get a dog, get a dog whose personality you enjoy first and foremost. Size and breed alone do not guarantee that vaginal sex will be possible without force. On top of that, some dogs may not allow it or might even dislike it, even if it is possible. Sometimes alternative sexual acts may be possible, like fingering or oral sex, but there is no guarantee. There's also a possibility that sex is physically possible and the dog enjoys it, but you do not.
In all of these situations, you still have an animal whose well being and care are your responsibility for the next fifteen years. By owning a dog you are agreeing to care for it and give it the best quality of life you can, no matter what. This means you need to take into account what happens if the dog doesn't live up to your expectations.
/r/zoophilia archive
As far as my thoughts go: Find the breed that suits your lifestyle. Find the breed you love and are capable of taking care of. Don't pick a dog just because you want to have sex with them, that's the wrong way around.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
When the random button takes me to pages that are awkward for me...
Same here. I.. I don't want to be here anymore.
Both of you? Hm.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
Lol, I am replying safely from my inbox
LOL at the "random button" people hahahahaha.
I heard Irish Setters are pretty dumb. Just sayin'
Also, its more an individual thing more than by breed.
Haha right!
"Idk how I got here!"
Oooook
Irish Setter sounds about right.
When it gets to sex with dogs, or animals overall, you say that Labrador is the minimum size you want to have sex with. Everything below can result in injury.
Random subreddit of the day. Ooh sweet cthulhu you want to do what to a dog?! I'm aching to know how you justify this isn't animal abuse.
Well, that´s quite easy: an animal does not make the same distinction between "animal" and "human"...for them, a human CAN be just another member of the herd/pack.It all depends on how much you are willing to become one of them, adopting THEIR behavior, learning to read THEIR body language. For an animal, mating with a human CAN be no "abuse" when it´s done according to the animal´s natural mating ritual. My mare even "invites" me to mate with her by doing her natural mating routine she would do with one of her own species. It all depends on how much the human is willing to transgress his "humanity", how much he is willing to fill out the position of a natural mating partner of the animal´s species. Note: I don´t want this to be understood as a general absolution for anyone feeling the urge to fuck animals. But you have to realize that some individuals exist who are literally made for transgressing the species boundaries...born zoophiles.I don´t know where it comes from, I can´t tell you why it is so, but it is a fact that people like us zoophiles always existed. In the animal kingdom, cross species sexuality is common and since humans are animals too, it should be clear that it is perfectly "natural" for some(!) individuals to feel attracted to another species not their own (although...well, that would make me digress and produce a wall of text you don´t want to read^^)... Deep emotional love isn´t human exclusive...other species can feel it too. May be a little hard to swallow for someone believing in human exceptionalism and superiority of mankind...but we zoos are like Galileo Galilei, we represent a concept that all life is equal, thus sawing onto mankind´s self given throne as "the salt of the earth", " nature´s best creation" etc. Like Galilei, we attack the common misconception of our universe built around humans; as Galilei, we destroy mankind´s illusion of being special. The terracentric "weltbild" fell and was replaced by the heliocentric...we zoos wil make the anthropocentric "weltbild" fall. All life is equal, a fact even science is researching more and more. Animals are closer to humans than mankind was willing to believe...they CAN love, they CAN be interested in mating with a biped. It all depends on how much your own weltbild will be able to accept the higher truth that all life is equal. If you do it with an animal "the human way", then we can talk about abuse. But if certain individuals are able to do it with an animal the way their own species would do it, I really can´t see why someone would misinterpret this as abuse. For an animal, it doesn´t matter what species his/her companion belongs to...they aren´t fooling themselves like mankind does. They see the truth...all life is equal. It´s only stupid, self delusional humans insisting on being something better than one of these "filthy animals"...
So, I guess I need to get a bit of clarification from you, because none of what you typed there translates to my brain and its "terracentric" understanding of how human/animal relationships work.
You say that animals are capable of "love" in the same sense as humans? As in romantic, transcendent, heart going pitter pat love? I'm not refuting your assertion, I'd just like to know how you KNOW this. Since you've obviously put a lot of thought into this response, perhaps you can find the time to explain how you come to this conclusion.
Would I be incorrect in guessing that since I was not "born a zoophile" I won't have the same perspective as you, even if you rationally explain it to me? You say "deep emotional love" in reference to animal feelings and existential experiences, but what evidence other than personal and anecdotal has lead you to believe this? I am genuinely curious, so please do not take offense if my questions are clumsy.
Good questions.
I'll give my own answers since I think these are actually good, fair questions. I'll try to avoid as much emotional anecdote as I can, so this might sound a bit cold and overly-logical.
As far as love goes, whether or not animals can truly love us is a question people who live and work with animals have been asking forever. Most people who have pets will probably say that they do, in some form. I have a different view of this than 30-30, and probably others have their own perspectives as well. I do believe that animals can experience an emotion that is similar to what we describe as love, and can feel this towards humans. There is actually evidence of this in dogs in that when they interact with their humans, their bodies release the same hormones associated with feelings of love and affection. So, the basic feeling is probably there.
Where I differ from some zoos is that I am not certain if animals have feelings of romance/romantic attraction or if this is a human concept. Part of the trouble is that this is a concept that is difficult to define in humans, let alone animals who have different breeding systems and social structures. Describing what it is always sounds awkward, cold, and incomplete, but I think romantic attraction can be at least partially described as attraction towards non-physical aspects of someone, like personality, in a way that differs from friendship. How it's different depends on the person, but it usually involves preferring the target(s) over others and wanting different kinds of interaction and contact with them.
As far as non-humans go, what I do know from experience and anecdotes is that animals show preferences for individuals and will seek out/allow/deny different kinds of interaction and contact depending on the person. Are these evidence of romantic attraction from animals, or are the romantic feelings only felt by the human? I don't believe we can answer this question at this time without relying on anecdote and personal philosophical belief. In my opinion, I don't think that it cheapens someone's relationship with an animal or invalidates someone's feelings if the animal doesn't, or is incapable of experiencing romantic feelings.
I think you are correct that not being a zoophile will give you a different perspective. I think that dry, purely rational explanations are great, but they are incomplete in describing the human-animal bond. I think this is an area where experience is just as valuable, if not more, than just facts, though those facts can enrich the experience.
I appreciate your response, thank you.
For me this all boils down to what I know and understand of animal motivation and cognizance, which is largely limited to dogs, so I'll be using them as my example.
Dogs and man share a parallel evolution of sorts in regards to social interaction and motivation. Ancient dogs learned rightly that if they stayed near humans they might get fed, so thus the gourmet began. From a scientific standpoint, the pheromones you're referring to haven't been observed to have an effect of humans. Humans produce "anthropines", according to one theory, but even then there is very little conclusive evidence that our biological imperatives are driven or even significantly affected by them. If this were true you'd see a far greater body of research into how to manipulate them. The evidence is at best inconclusive, so for me that remains largely a moot point considering the variables involved in proving that humans are even affected by them in the same way.
Emotionally, dogs are pretty complex, and this has been proven time and again with instances of dogs performing all manner of bravery to protect their pack. This is largely accepted as instinctual behavior combined with a learned and conditioned response to show affection. My ugly shih tzu knows that if he licks my hand I'll scratch his head and give him affection. He also knows that of I leave the room that any chances of belly rubs go out the window.
Dogs also are not capable of experiencing the passage of time in the same manner that we do, this is because dogs aren't self aware. Not only aren't they self aware, they aren't even aware of the fact that they're not self aware, which brings me to my next point.
Dogs function on a need to eat basis. 90% of their motivation is food based. I train dogs as a hobby and as a secondary source of income, so to some degree I have some level of authority to speak on this topic. The debate rages on training methods and what is acceptable, but the universal constant is that reward based training is the most effective in achieving results.
To my knowledge, you can train a dog to do just about anything, which brings me to my final line of inquiry.
I've been training dogs for quite some time, and for a great deal of reasons, be it behavioral or recreational. I teach people the methods to train their dogs to produce a desired behavior. Considering what I know about canine behavior, motivation, and instinct I'm pretty certain that dogs make no distinction between human and dog when it comes to their heat cycle. A person such as yourself can choose to interpret this as a level of attraction on par with flirting or what have you, but dogs just aren't aware in the same manner.
If you want to train your animal to be receptive to sexual advances then I'm absolutely sure with the right amount of patience and coercion you could achieve the results you want. That being said, what you've got essentially is canine prostitution as the learned behaviors are there in order to illicit a response, which is usually for food or affection. Dogs love belly rubs, that much is true, but there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest that they enjoy sex recreationally. The same cannot be said for dolphins though, but I don't know shit about cetaceans.
I appreciate your response a lot, but I remain convinced that at the end of the day zoophiles will look for just about any justification to legitimize their behavior. Be it taboo or not, I don't see any reason to believe that this isn't exploitative to the animal involved as they just don't have the mental capacity to understand exactly what is happening in the same level as the human involved. At best this is Pavlovian sexual response, at worst this is sexual coercion.
forgive me if I got the wrong end of the stick (heh) but your post seems to imply that you think zoos need to train their dogs to have sex with them, but you also say
At this point sexual coercion can be ruled out as we wouldn't be forcing the dog to do anything. I dont think implying this a pavlovian response is applicable either unless you count sexual pleasure as a reward in which case I see no problem as thats simply just a case of the dog doing something to get what it wants (equivalent to pressing a button and receiving food).
dogs dont need to be trained for sex, they are innately sexual beings. All we are doing is obliging them in a way which mutually aligns with our own self interests.
Sexual coercion would not be ruled out due to no distinction being made. The point is that dogs that live in homes with humans are under the impression that they belong to a pack. The distinction here is that humans can make the distinction and that they can take advantage of their animals in that manner.
You're misusing the term sexual being to fit your narritive. A female dog will illicit sexual contact from a make dog for the sole purpose of reproduction. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest that male dogs desire anything more than to reproduce.
By saying you're simply obliging them is disingenuous.
You can excuse your behavior however you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're manipulating an animal for the sole purpose of your own sexual gratification. A female dog expects to have puppies after being mounted by a male dog, and since you as a human cannot fulfill that instinctual biological imperative, that means your "reciprocation" of "advances" is disingenuous, and therefore manipulation.
There's no rational reason to do this other than mental illness. I read that the "zoo community" wishes people would lend the same sympathies to them as the lgbtq community, I see trans people thrown in that mix as well. Trans people have gender based body dysphoria, which is a real thing. So if you say that being born this way is real, then "zoos" are born biologically different, and by that measure are treatable. I think further testing is warranted, because clearly help is needed.
Sorry if I'm spamming you or anything, I just thought I'd respond to some comments made here, namely these:
I'd like to point out that there's no evidence suggesting this either. Understanding reproduction and having intent to reproduce suggests a rather complicated thought process and some knowledge I don't believe dogs have. There would need to be an active desire for offspring, an understanding that certain acts result in offspring (and for dogs, who cannot understand that they are being punished for something they did a few minutes ago, figuring that something they did a couple months ago resulted in puppies seems unlikely), and a willingness to complete that act with no other reward than offspring in the future. For animals with poor scope of time and cause and effect, it seems more reasonable to think that there is some immediate reward, likely pleasure, for mating.
To address the comments about it being an illness, it could be considered that since it is a deviation from what is considered normal and acceptable. However, I don't think it's inherently harmful or presents an immediate danger to the person or others. If someone wants to seek treatment, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. Similarly, if someone if doing things like trespassing or injuring animals (either intentionally or not seeking help if an accident occurs) they need to be stopped and given help.
nice, I was just about to write almost the exact same thing.
Thanks for the response back, I enjoy seeing other points of view on the topic so I can challenge my own.
I think we may be referring to something slightly different in regards to pheromones/hormones- I was referring to the evidence for hormones like oxytocin having effects on dogs' ability to bond with humans.
I also have some experience in training dogs through positive methods and I try to research canine behavior as much as I can. I actually agree that an animal in heat is no more 'flirting' with a human than they would be to another animal. I would suggest though that, at least with dogs, they can differentiate between a human and another dog, since they seem to be able to with other interactions. Whether or not this affects how they act when in heat, I wouldn't be sure or make claims about, though I'd suspect this varies depending on their socialization.
I also agree that dogs don't have the same understanding of sex as humans do. At the very least, I doubt they understand the biology of it, the possible risks, and absolutely don't know about the weird social and spiritual associations humans put on it. I'll discuss this a bit more later.
However, I'd argue that they probably experience sexual contact as pleasurable and that they seem to seek out sexual stimulation. As far as conclusive studies about the evidence for recreational sex goes, I'm not aware of any, but I don't think that this means that it doesn't happen, or at the very least that they don't derive pleasure from it.
Dogs of both sexes are well known to engage in masturbation with themselves or objects as well as engage in play with other animals that involves mounting and rubbing their genitalia against a partner. This behavior is frequently attributed to 'dominance', but I'm highly skeptical of that as an explanation. There is also a behavior similar to humping, but with the difference of there being penetration (but rarely a tie, why this is, I could only speculate) involved. These behaviors are also known to be self-reinforcing despite not necessarily involving food or affection.
Whether or not this means they have sex for pleasure is debatable, but I think it at least suggests there might be pleasure involved from sexual stimulation. I personally believe that if an animal receives pleasure from something and seeks out/performs an action for it, as long as it isn't overly dangerous, that it isn't wrong for the human to participate, encourage the action, or get pleasure from it.
For the record though, I don't condone coercion using food to illicit a sexual response, and I would never use it myself. I fortunately don't see or hear of it used in the circles I frequent either. If a dog isn't interested, they aren't interested and that should be respected. Imo, this goes for breeding, semen collection, and artificial insemination as well. This is slightly inconsistent with my other beliefs, but I think it's for the best.
This is where things get to be more controversial both with zoos and outsiders, and it's the issue of understanding sex on a higher level than just "feels good." Even if we assume that all animals will seek out sexual stimulation for pleasure, humans still have more understanding of why it is happening, what the outcome is, and what, if any, risks are involved. We also can't explicitly inform the animal of this, and this, understandably makes many uncomfortable with the idea. I was actually opposed for a long time because of this, myself.
This, however, is not exclusive to sexual acts, but is something inherent to all human-animal interactions. While some of these interactions may be vital (like surgery), others are either completely unnecessary (maybe taking goofy pictures or conformation showing), or have less risky alternatives (like hiking vs. walking around the block). Ultimately it is up to humans to asses risk and do what they can to minimize or avoid risk in any activities they involve animals in. As long as an unnecessary action doesn't inherently involve abuse or inflict pain and fear, whether or not an action/activity is justified I think is a personal choice.
I think that because animals don't/can't assign the social/spiritual meaning to sex that humans have, they wouldn't consider it to be different than other activities we might do with them. Because of this, I don't consider sexual activity to be significantly different compared to other interactions with animals, and so I don't find it to be inherently more exploitative either. I understand though that this is a personal belief, and it's one that not everyone, even other zoophiles, will share or like.
Ultimately personal beliefs and limits are what it comes down to. Everyone has their own beliefs about what is and isn't okay to do with animals based around risk, benefit, animal behavior, and some anthropomorphism. For some, sports are an unjustifiable risk, others believe they are excellent way to bond with and exercise their pet. Some enjoy extravagantly grooming their pets, others think that it's pointless and potentially cruel. And of course, some people think it's okay to have sexual contact with animals, others don't.
They should put you down.
You're overreacting a bit, don't you think?
Take a deep breath, as well as take a step back and try to be less emotional about it.
[deleted]
Silly me...for a second there, I believed that the both of us are rational adults which could have a serious conversation about a serious topic but I was wrong.
So I'm just going to politely disagree with you and hope that you never get your hands on a firearm.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. \(Info ^/ Contact)
As if it only depends on your dick fitting into your dog....sigh Hey, listen...you don´t get a dog like you are getting a travelpussy, you know? What if your doggie turns out to be not into having sex with you, even if your size would be suitable for her? Have you thought about that? Love is NOT a thing you can measure by your penis size. It depends on many other factors, like character of the dog etc. Sadly, outsiders found your thread in here, so again we zoos are perceived as mindless fucking machines with no heart...and I have to add that a quick google search could have given all the answers you need regarding sizes....just compare yourself to a male dog of your "favourite" breed; if a male dog fits into a female, you probably will fit into her when size of your genital is comparable. Easy as fuck, isn´t it?
You´re putting an image out there I am really ashamed of...you claim to love, but all that interests you is if your dick will fit...for me, it´s totally understandable that most outsiders will evaluate that as another proof how self centered and egoistic we zoos are...
I feel the same way. I'd be extremely embarrassed to be associated with this community if discussions/questions like OPs aren't considered entirely inappropriate.
"Oh hey, I'm a zoophile-- I guess I'd better get a dog!" is a really, really dangerous way to think. Exploring and coming to terms with your sexuality can be a difficult process for anyone-- and it's guaranteed to be way, way more difficult to people who identify with a sexual orientation that's overwhelmingly seen as taboo, disgusting, and wrong. Like, say, zoophilia.
If you want your relationship with your dog to be safe and healthy for both of you (WHICH YOU SHOULD), then you need to ensure that your dog can always trust you. Which means you need to ensure that your feelings towards your dog (or certain parts of yourself) aren't going to change someday.
...so, first of all, slow down. I'm sure the idea of being with a dog is really appealing to you right now, but you seem blinded to the other parts of being with a dog.
...like, say, the fact that a dog you own is its own being who isn't just going to behave exactly like you hope it will all the time. What if the dog you get isn't as 'loving' as you had hoped she'd be? What if she seems to prefer having her own personal space, and feels uncomfortable when you get close to her? Is that something you'd be able to handle? Is that something you had even considered as a possibility?
Why is the ability to have vaginal sex with your potential dog so important to you? I don't think it's wrong for someone to think this way, but I don't feel like you actually understand your own motivations here.
Why do you think having sex with a dog will make that dog feel 'worshiped'? Why do you want to make the dog feel that way-- if a dog even can feel that way? Is it something you want to happen for the dog's sake, or for your own?
Dogs aren't people. They don't behave like people, and they don't think like people. Anthropomorphizing dogs is tempting, and pretty much everyone does it all the time-- but it's something you have to be extremely careful about when the dog is in a vulnerable position (like, say, when they're in a sexual relationship with a human). Your post seems to suggest that you aren't aware of this yet.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be thinking about getting a dog right now. Pretty much everything about this post suggests to me that you aren't prepared for what a relationship with a dog is really like.
God this thread sucks. OP is apparently 16 years old and doesnt even masturbate (apparently...).
Youre not a zoo OP, youre just a horny teenager. Go have a wank before you even think about calling yourself a zoo and waaay before you even think about getting a dog. Also your parents would be pissed if you bought a dog back.
Also when talking about nofapping
that kinda backfired, lol.
Edit: after reading more of your posting history, OP, you need professional help, not a dog.
After checking his post history, I could not agree more on your last sentence...
As others have said, I think it's too early for you to decide to get a canine partner, especially while living with your parents. Right now, I think it's good for you to explore your feelings and sexuality, but you should do it in ways that are safer for both you and your potential partner.
Try volunteering with dogs (but, and this should go without saying, but don't interact with them sexually if they aren't yours) to get a feeling of if you really like them, or if you just like the idea of them. Also try to do more research on zoophilia itself. The subreddit here is a decent place to browse and get an idea of what zoophilia is.
Finally, if you do decide to get a dog, get a dog whose personality you enjoy first and foremost. Size and breed alone do not guarantee that vaginal sex will be possible without force. On top of that, some dogs may not allow it or might even dislike it, even if it is possible. Sometimes alternative sexual acts may be possible, like fingering or oral sex, but there is no guarantee. There's also a possibility that sex is physically possible and the dog enjoys it, but you do not.
In all of these situations, you still have an animal whose well being and care are your responsibility for the next fifteen years. By owning a dog you are agreeing to care for it and give it the best quality of life you can, no matter what. This means you need to take into account what happens if the dog doesn't live up to your expectations.