Maybe it's unethical to have sex with an animal unless it's the initiator. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2016-04-13 02:49:23 by horse_account
If you're the one who tries to initiate sex and the animal accepts it, it might not really want to have sex. It might just be thinking "the person wants to do this thing and I want to make the person happy, so I'll do the thing with the person even though I kind of don't want to", as opposed to "I'm glad the person is doing this, they're hot and I want them sexually". If the animal approaches you, you know that it's thinking "the person is hot, I'm going to try to initiate sex with them because I want that".
There are certain biological signals that are unmistakable. If the female is wet, then she's sexually wanting it. If the male his hard, then he wants it.
I don't think that's right, humans can get hard and release fluids and have orgasms even when they're being raped. Having physiological responses to sexual stimulation even though you're thinking "I'd rather not be doing this" is nothing compared to that.
But most animals that men could sex are able to easily tear a human male limb from limb... Even more effectively than Chewbacca vs. droids. If the animal doesn't kill you then it is receptive.
But animals, at least domesticated ones, generally don't decide to tear a person limb from limb because they would kind of rather not be doing something. They usually just put up with it. Our dog's never attacked us over getting washed or brushed.
I'd add that the "deer in headlights" effect has that name for a reason. If they're not actively soliciting you, even a wild animal might just be hoping you go away.
But the way you say this makes me think that even when they put up with it, you understood from their behavior and body language that they did not like getting washed or brushed. Isn't that the point? That initiating or not initiating isn't the only communication when it comes to sex, that you can initiate sex and through ongoing communication find out whether they like it or only put up with it?
I dare you to take a housecat's temperature anally.
It's a too simplist vision.
Sexual stimulation, and even orgasm, is more or less independant from mind.
Willingness is more a facilitator than a trigger.
I'd hold out for enthusiasm, not just a failure to dissent.
I'm not sure how this is different from the situation with human beings. Yes, human beings generally have verbal language to describe their desires, and abstract forethought to decide what they want. But there can be contradictions between their verbal and nonverbal cues, as well as social reasons a human might have sex without desiring it (marriage, to get other favors later, power, etc.). Also, a person's foresight is not perfect, and with the addition of factors like drug or alcohol use, deception or ignorance about their situation, and the possibility of being influenced to remember events differently than they actually occurred, this is far from a sure thing.
Even initiation is not completely foolproof in detecting healthy sexual interest, though it very strongly indicates that. One could, for instance, be desperate and willing to take any opportunity, or could be in an altered state which leads them to attractions they ordinarily would not act upon.
In the end, with human beings we have all of the same ambiguities you describe with animals, both with tools to help sort these out and further complications caused by these same tools. We have to use our best judgment to determine consent, taking new information as it comes to adjust our actions, while humbly acknowledging that we could be mistaken in any case.
I don't really think animals think of other animals in terms of "hotness." I don't know if they get attracted to each other in that sort of way. Maybe I would like it if they did though.
Hotness is really just attractiveness, and there are many cues that signal mate fitness (symmetry, hip to waist ratios, estrogen markers, etc). Every species has adapted to find some feature attractive.
Initiation can be an indicator of the true metric, but I don't think its either necessary or sufficient. After all, you can be an initiator, but then change your mind halfway through, and you can be more passive in that regard, but still clearly want the activity.
I think a more reasonable metric is what I call "enthusiastic participation".
If the animal is thinking (to put it anthropomorphic terms): "I don't really want this but I'll go along with it anyway", you can tell because of their lack of enthusiastic participation - if they're just laying there letting you do your thing, for instance. Likewise, even if you initiate something, if the animal responds with vigorous approval and all that, it doesn't matter you initiated things - the signals are clear.
Now, given, this can get complicated depending on the species in question, but I think it's a much more reasonable criterion overall.
What if we just enjoy sex quietly? Does it always have to be "enthusiastic" (where the person seems outwardly enthusiastic about it)? If I was a nonhuman animal, zoo humans would probably think I was never liking it when I actually was.
I think enthusiastic is relative to the individual. An animal might generally be quiet and low-key, but if their partner knows them very well, there should still be signs of how they feel about the activity. There is a lot of body language to look at, that can generally show the difference between grudging acceptance and happy approval, even for a low-key animal.
There is a common misconception that women do not enjoy sex and only do it to please men. I feel this is the idea you are talking about.
To be fair, I don't think an article about human sexuality is very relevant here.
It is as much as an article on dog sexuality applies to horse sexuality. It shows at least one mammal exhibits said trait, and establishes a norm to be disproven rather than leaving raw conjecture to be proven.
I don't know about unethical, but it's certainly much safer to allow the animal to initiate things. Even if it's not 100% foolproof, like Kynophile points out, I think it's reasonable to assume that if the animal is 'in control' of the situation they'll stop and walk away if they lose interest. That might be tougher for them to do if they're being acted upon.
While I'm interested in both male and female animals, for exactly that reason I really only would ever consider letting a male mount me.
A calf sucks on everything that looks like a teat. Taking advantage of an animal´s reflexes isn´t consent. With male animals, one could easily argue that the humping is nothing more than another form of reflex you´re taking advantage of. Since all male animals used for "zoo contacts" are trained in some way or another, I tend to disagree on your point of view.
If given the chance to end sexual contact at their will, female animals are more "clear" about informed consent...if the sexual contact is done in a way that´s as close to their natural sexual behavior as possible. Let me explain: although I´ve not seen many man-on-mare clips, the few that I´ve seen only feature apathetic tolerance of the female. The infamous "twitching" action is, as I´ve said in other threads, not a sign of horniness, but the opposite, a minor annoyance they try to drive off by muscular contractions like they do when a fly sits on their belly or flanks. The mares I´ve seen in these clips never show the typical equine mating position with hind legs spread, they don´t show the typical looseness of their labia BEFORE any insertion takes place. Often, the mares are tied or restricted to an area (corner of the box, paddock bars etc.). This surely isn´t consentual sexuality. It is dominated by the needs of the human and it is the human who decides. But there´s another way: let´s say that you´ve gathered so much knowledge about your species and its mating rituals that you´re able to fill out the male part authentically enough to join a mare´s "mating dance", with all that´s involved. You act almost like one of their species, you can identify the mating signals correctly (what isn´t as easy as reading through these shitty how-tos, but takes a lot of in depth knowledge of the individual female). So, you do all the sniffing, nibbling actions a stallion would do as foreplay. You pursue her to show interest. You wait until she signals her interest by making eye contact with you and spilling her fluids.You let her decide the moment when intercourse takes place by waiting for her to get into the mating position. Surely you could say that this also is taking advantage of a mare´s heat cycle...but what if she is showing this behavior outside of her heat phases? What if a vet examines her to ensure that she does not suffer from hormonal imbalance that would lead to a perpetual heat phase? I know you never can be 100% sure, but with all of that taken into consideration, how much more is needed to assume informed consent to sex?
I believe that it´s not as easily determinable as you like it to see: males don´t have a heat cycle as thus are ready for "it" 365 days a year; that´s how they are designed. Taking advantage of this does not equal consent much more than anything else you can come up with. But female animals do have this kind of natural restriction to their sex drive and if you play by their species` rules, don´t tie them, corner the or restrict them in any other way, if they clearly show their natural mating behavior as they would do with male individual of their own species and if you mate with them like they are "programmed" by nature, I´d lean out the window so much that I´d say this is the nearest you can come to actual "informed consent" to sex outside their own species. "Informed" because they can recognize anything that´s going on as proper, adaequate mating behavior ; "consent" because you provide them with every chance you can think of to withdraw from your advances at any time any have enough in depth knowledge to correctly identify even the smallest sign of disapproval and apathy (that´s what most self proclaimed "zoos" seem to lack the most, btw) ad hoc.
Working through "fuck algorithms" (how-tos) from top to bottom doesn´t suffice to ensure "informed consent". Passing inaccuracies and myths like "winking and peeing shows pleasure" onto others also is doomed to fail. In the end, it´s entirely dependent on yourself , on your own will to question your actions permanently to ensure that your deeply felt "love" does not deteriorate into a bullshit justification. With female animals, it may seem harder to identify consent as a lot of real knowledge is needed. But when you have this knowledge, real consent in my opinion can be recognized in female animals a lot easier than in males who will hump basically anything and do not seem to be the least bit selective. If you steer clear from mistaking apathy as consent, if you refrain from doing it with a female animal "your" (human) way but are willing to play by their species´ rules, with all that´s involved in it, consent can be justifiably assumed, although there never will be the one, last and final proof.
I agree with most of what you said, but the idea that since males might always be interested in sex or are potentially less selective than females they must never be interested in sex seems pretty absurd.
From a strictly biological point of view, males are there to pass their genes. The readiness to procreate whenever and wherever is a biological fact and the evolutionary purpose of males in general. If you like it or not, female animals are indeed more selective about their sex partners than males since the females have to deal with the consequences of their choice much more than males. "Wham,bam, thank you m´am" versus pregnancy and all that´s involved... I´ve never came across a stallion who refused to mate with any mare showing heat signals, but I know quite a lot of mares who turned down advances from stallions, even in full heat.
Hey, if an animal wants to mount me for 'strictly biological' reasons, that's fine by me.
Given how enormously different non-human mating processes can be from human ones, I'm more concerned by "are they enjoying themselves" and "are they likely to be injured, even accidentally" than any "strictly biological" reasons.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/30/30-strangest-animal-mating-habits/
The more I learn about the breadth of nature, the more I doubt things that I had previously assumed to be universal truths.
So basically any heterosexual female zoosexual just "takes advantage" of the "automata" and "reflexes" of male animals according to you? Since male animals are less "choosy" and driven by the need to attain all the pussy that is there for the taking that makes them robots right? They don't like actually feel attraction to anyone or like to have sex, they just have rote reflexes. And you call yourself a "zoophile?"
Please read carefully what I´ve wrote. Notice that I´ve written "...one could easily argue.." and not " I think it is that way..."
All I wanted to say is that it´s not so easy to determine what motivation a male animal has. Since not a single male animal I´ve met could be described as somewhat picky when it comes to possible intercourse, it could be nothing more than taking advantage of the humping reflex. This does not exclude the possibility that there is more than that in specific relationships. A simple test could help clarify this: just invite any other "zoo" friend to your house. If your animal humps this person that technically is an unknown stranger with exactly the same vigor and enthusiasm, chances are pretty high that you as an individual person are somehow irrelevant and it´s basically the humping reflex you both take advantage of. My mare never accepted another "contender" besides me and even kicked a gelding´s leg so hard it had to be treated for 3 weeks; I had to pay for that, but luckily had insurance covering the total cost of 800 Euros. Anyone , either bi- or quadruped, coming near her private parts quickly learned to stay the fuck off her.
I used to think like this.
My one chance to make love with Willow was spoiled by this philosophy.
All I've got to say about it is if you don't try, you will never know. And having regrets is not fun.
Is it even hot if the animal's not into it?
If an animals really not into it, my experience (at least with things other than sex) is that they will let you know that quite clearly. They don't have the cautious "I hope this won't offend you" mindset of people.