This video has little to do with zoosexuality directly, but at least in my case it highlights some of the reasons I feel a preference for animals. In essence, it's a discussion of how men are expected to prostrate themselves before women and cater to their every need, acting as "beta males". The man in this video states that his relationship has him acting as an "alpha male", a protector and provider with a good amount of control. He complains that many view this sort of relationship as toxic because of its similarity in broad terms to those of wifebeating misogynists and their battered spouses.

As I watched it, I considered how in animal relationships, the human partner acts as the alpha most of the time by necessity, since they do generally have a good deal of control (though it's obviously limited). And in my view, much of the opposition to zoosexuality comes from its comparison to this sort of dominant role which is claimed to be oppressive. The animal, in this case, is regarded as a child or as mentally challenged, and so we in their eyes take advantage of the situation for our own ends, despite our love and care for our partners.

So, here are some questions for discussion: does anyone else here have some qualms over the amount of control they have over their relationships with animal partners? Is it possible that this control fulfills some psychological need in men to protect and provide which has in recent decades been severely lessened by western society? Is it worthwhile to take steps toward balancing power with animals (if that idea is even coherent), and what could those steps be?

In my opinion, regardless of the partner, if one needs to talk about "taking control" in any way they miss the point. A relationship should never be about control and dominance but equality. In zoorelations this is obviously impossible which is where I feel most problems come from.

Power imbalances are intrinsic to animal ownership. It's called "ownership" for a reason. This isn't unique to zoophiles.

does anyone else here have some qualms over the amount of control they have over their relationships with animal partners?

No, I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm not and have never been in a sexual relationship with my animal companions, but I don't really think it would change anything even if I did. In my opinion, "owning" animals, feeding and watering them daily, giving them a safe and warm space of leisure and sleep, assuring their medical care, giving them companionship and affection and etc. is objectively better than letting them have their freedom with no strings attached, i.e. letting them fend for themselves in the wild. I know a handful of people don't agree with this sentiment, but fuck 'em. An animal is better off being stripped of some of their autonomy than to starve or lose body parts to frostbite. No one will ever convince me otherwise.

Is it possible that this control fulfills some psychological need in men to protect and provide which has in recent decades been severely lessened by western society?

Interesting. I often hear people claim that zoophilia stems from an incapacity to form relationships with humans, but never that it rather taps into a desire to care and protect another. For my part, I still find dogs attractive regardless of if I provide for them or not. But I do admit I am drawn towards the idea of making an animal be at ease.

Is it worthwhile to take steps toward balancing power with animals (if that idea is even coherent), and what could those steps be?

In my opinion, any animal owner should study about the behavior and communication of their animals to better ascertain their state of mind and feelings. Then, they should respect the boundaries that the animal establishes. There will always be power imbalances in animal ownership. But if the relationship is at least respectful, I don't particularly see a problem with that.

The only moments that I'll take "control" is for when harm to the animal is a possibility. The rest of it, I see myself equal to a dog, they have a life, I have a life. And yes, a dog is totally different in behavior than me, but that doesn't mean I am more than it. Yes, I do have advantages in life, compared to a dog, because I'm a human in a human society, still doesn't make me more. I want to care for them and make their lives better, that's what I want. I prefer equal terms, and when the point arises that I do need to take control, dogs will follow in.

You just need to understand your dog, and the way it communicates.

And as far as I know, with human relations, you're supposed to make their life better. You love them and want to see them happy, that's how I would get happy myself. If both partners do so, then you add to each others life in a positive way.

Nowhere have I noticed that one needs to be dominant and assert control over "your wife/girl". Historically, yes, the husband provided and the wife took care of stuff. However, we live in an age where that is no longer necessary, even possible to some extend. And also, the difference between taking a pose as alpha, and abuse, is the violence (be it verbal or physical) There are many who can control this, but not everyone, and if his wife agrees with how he deals, then it works, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

Don't get me wrong that I say taking leadership is wrong, in fact it can help, but, you're dealing with a human so, communicate. With dogs, you cant tell them not to do things because it could harm them, with humans, you can.