Hey guys, I was talking to someone about zoophilia and they posed an issue I've never specifically heard before. A tiny bit of background, weirdly enough it's my mother I was taking to about this. She has known for years that I'm zoo, she found out inadvertently when I was a teenager who didn't always erase my iPod history. I tried my best to explain the concept at the time, but it was all so new to me and I didn't have the right language or arguments to make my thoughts and feelings understood. She didn't freak out or yell or anything, just was weirded out and advised me never to tell anyone.
Not a word more was spoken about it since then. (I still have some lingering anxiety about it, and don't even look at dogs when I'm around my mother) Until yesterday when the subject just kind of came up. We had a pretty reasonable and calm discussion, and I told her my views on the subject. One of her objections surprised me. Essentially, "once a dog has sex with a human, they will always want to. won't those dogs constantly want to have sex with everybody?"
Her concern is that being sexually intimate with an animal will fundamentally and permanently change it's behavior, and that it would be a problem for society. Or it would make the animal unsafe to re-home if they ever had to be.
How would you respond to this concern? Thoughts/experiences/ideas? Thanks(:
Maybe. Some people constantly want to have sex with other people. Others, like me, have other priorities.
Sex is a feeling like any other, like hunger. It is very base. Dogs want sex whether they have had interactions with human or not.
American have a love hate relationship with sexuality. Fox News (a conservative news channel) frowns upon sex, but hires attractive women. Prostitution is illegal, but sex is heavily used in marketing.
If the animal has not been physically harmed, I don't see any reason why it cannot be rehomed. The problem lies in people often see sex with animals as wrong, but have no problem with killing animals (eh, I mean euthanasia. "Killing animals" isn't market-friendly.). Don't tell the new owners anything. The first thing on their mind is: "Has it been neutered or spayed?" This is the anti-sexuality mentality working in.
I believe the Zeta group has a good set of ethics for zoophiles:
I want to go back this idea: Humans are animals. Did you have to be in a sexual relationship to gain sexual attraction? Why are you sexually attracted to dogs?
It is a potential risk that it could promote unwanted mounting behavior, which is a good reason to leave others animals alone. However, I don't see it as something that someone would be unable to correct. Dogs that are bred can be taught when mounting is appropriate and when it's not, I think the same is true here.
The same goes for rehoming. There are far, far worse habits rehomed dogs can have than humping.
^ This. If you're consistent about when sexual actions are ok and when they're not (e.g., only engaging in sexual activity in a specific room of the house), I don't think you'll run into many problems along that line.
It's a more enlightened concern than most, but your mother is being kind of absolutist, don't you think? A dog might not always want to continue having sex with humans, particularly if they're completely different people. A dog might not constantly want sex either even if they want to continue doing so with people. Animals can form complex associations with actions and reactions, feelings and events. It's not always as simple as flipping switches.
People seem to think that animals are robots. And if they're not robots, then they're at most braindead children. They aren't either one.
Furthermore, there is one reason that the behavior your mother describes is at all a menace to society. In the US, I feel, people don't like to think that animals are sexual; animal sexuality is a "problem" to be fixed or managed unless it's either endearing or makes people money. "Being sexual" is not on the list of behaviors that pets (and other companion animals close to people) are allowed to express in most western homes or social situations.
I was just reading a great post on a dressage rider's blog about her mare, who is a constant nympho slut when she is in heat. A trained vet (!) who owned the barn (!!!) told her that this was a huge problem and it needed to be addressed. The horse owner thought otherwise. However, due to the circumstances, this dilemma resulted in an impromptu field trip for a number of vet students and a vet professor who, unsurprisingly, told the horse owner that her mare was in fact just in heat, and there was nothing wrong. No hormonal problems, no ovarian cysts or tumors, no nothing.
She was just a mare. Mares want to have sex when they're in heat. Some want it more ferociously than others. Sometimes that mental distraction can change their behavior. Shocker.
Now if this owner were any other horse person, she might have suppressed her mare's estrus cycle with Regumate (a drug) and called the "problem" fixed, just like so many others have done. I've heard anecdotes of owners and trainers punishing poor unknowing mares for displaying estrus behavior to their human handlers, even though the mares weren't being disrespectful or rude...like such a thing is embarrassing and gross, rather than profoundly flattering.
Sorry for the ramble, but this kind of peeves me a lot.
solid point. I also get the feeling as though it makes the owner feel uncomfortable/embarrassed that they are seen to have a relationship with this openly sexual being in a society where sex is and sexuality are kept behind closed doors. they then project their own feelings onto the animal and delude themselves into thinking they're suppressing the animals sexuality for the animals own good when really its just the owners being selfish.
If you don't teach them anything, sure that is a concern. But most people do teach their dogs appropriate behavior or "manners". Like, not running up to people, jumping up at them and barking at them to greet them could be one, not just going around trying to have sex with people could be another.
Umm, what proof does she have that this will happen? It sounds similar to the old wives tale that an animal that has once "tasted human blood will always prefer to hunt humans", which is false.
I mean, a dog that has once mated with a bitch will not try to mate with everything forever after? So why would it be different with a human?