EDIT: As per usual, you guys have gone above and beyond with your feedback and discussion. Thank you again!
Zoophilia is far from being sexual, of course, but like any romance, it can lend itself to more carnal acts. I hesitated to post here as this is pretty heavy on the sexual front, but there's nobody I can trust more to provide valuable feedback on something so dependent on understanding and strong communication than you guys.
Data regarding the psychosexual traits of nonhumans is pretty sparse, but I figure if anyone would know, it would be you guys. It's clear by now that mammals, at least, find pleasure in sexual contact. This was until recently, commonly accepted as a trait of 'higher order' organisms... like humans or primates. Of course, a good number of zoos were privy to this long before, but science had yet to catch up. As if time is repeating itself, there's still another possible homogeny between humans and mammals that science has yet to thoroughly explore, and that most people assume against. Outside of hominids, foreplay isn't something that is explored and sex is assumed to be somewhat immediate aside from innate courting behavior. There are a few exceptions that have been observed, a la fruit bats, but far from enough to be able to definitively establish anything between all/most mammals, and definitely not enough to discount it as being a simple innate behavior.
For the sake of cogency , I'd like to define foreplay as being 1. Any novel behavior that could be assumed as meaning to entice or communicate desire(IE displaying, 'flagging', etc that can't be confirmed as being innate), 2. Any novel behavior directly preceding what is expected to be sexual contact(to clarify, when it's clear to the other that one wishes no initiate now), 3. Any novel behavior done when 'it is time' that may delay traditional sexual contact(IE fellatio, cunnilingus, "rimming", or anything similar), and for the sake of inclusiveness 4. Anything that can be perceived as being for the pleasure of the other above oneself. Additionally, I'd like to define novel behavior as anything that isn't or isn't likely to be innate or instinctive. If most or all members of your partner's species does it, it's not likely that it is novel.
For those of you with sexual nonhuman partners, is there anything you do to lead up to the act that could be considered foreplay(please specify frequency)? How do your partners respond to it, or begin to respond to it if they didn't immediately? Can you observe any preference for it?
Did your partners develop any habits of their own volition that could be considered foreplay? Do you think that their approach to sex evolved at all over time, or has it been relatively unchanging? To those ends, do you think your partner has a concept of eroticism, or has 'turn ons' that extend beyond the prospect of sex?
Some may find this more appropriate to address in an earlier question, but have you ever observed your nonhuman partners, of their own agency, perform more reciprocating sexual acts that would only/disproportionately bring pleasure to you? If applicable, do you think such behaviors were developed on their own, taught(through instruction), or acquired(through you doing the same for them)? Do they seem to have a distinct desire to pleasure you as well?
Lastly, and this is beyond the scope of foreplay but tangentially relevant nonetheless... have you observed any behavior proceeding sexual contact(IE snuggling, licking, etc) that is uncharacteristic of contact in a more platonic context?
Some of these questions are of course difficult to answer definitively and objectively, but for those whom these questions are applicable, your word is probably just as accurate as anything we'll get out of the scientific community.
ALSO, to those that participated in the activism thread, your feedback was superbly informative and seemed to do well to explain the stymieing social circumstance that zoos have been faced with. Thank you!
When my puppy was young, we were learning each other and I settled on a codeword to initiate "play" time. So, when we were learning.. I told him by saying two words and we would then do a lot of kissing and rubbing.. From the start, it was only just getting used to each other and learning when we could have some time alone.. This has turned into him being able to tell me in his own special way which resulted in the question being asked.
1) When he wants to play, he will come up and start to kiss, excessively, this is fine because he's a Labrador, you can pass it off as anything.. But that will result in the question which usually answered with a yes when he asks
2) When I say Yes and he says Yes... I generally get undressed, that involves then a lot of licking and french kissing, we then rub and play for a short while and more kissing and rimming until finally he decides what he wants.. Mount, Blowjob or just a Handjob. If I ask and he says nothing, then nothing happens... I end up finding something else to release my urge on..
3) Think I covered pretty much anything, there is always foreplay before "it is time"... Because, he likes it, I like it.. I mean, there are times when it's just a kiss to confirm and then he's rimming then right on my back, but that tends to be rare.
4) He tends to get everything he wants before I get what I want, that's not to say I don't enjoy everything that happens, but usually I have an itch to scratch and sometimes he does linger on the french kissing.
Foreplay is usually lots of rubbing.. Belly, Sheath, Balls and Belly.. Kissing, getting his tongue as deep as he can.. Rimming and a lot of turning. Everything usually happens at least twice, the kissing a lot more as that's the signal and he likes the taste. He's eager and keeps going, I don't use anything to enhance, it's all natural flavors and things. He does prefer kissing over everything else.. But I have no idea if he's just wants that more.
Well, of course role play evolved over time.. When he was younger, it was just teaching and letting him know everything was OK but you only do it at certain times.
His foreplay has never changed as the only tool he likes using is his tongue. His approach to sex, yes. He not always wanting something and does change his mind a bit. Does my partner get horny, of course. It's easy to tell when he's turned on as you can see his knot expand inside his sheath. Sometimes he does get a bit over excited and we have to stop to "shrink" him down.
He tends to not do anything out of the ordinary before wanting to play.. He knows how to tell me and I know how to ask him. Snuggling and Rubbing against me are just his normal lovable traits..
That's amazing. How did you discover you were into dogs that way.
Into my teens, but it took me a long long time to finally get my own puppy.
The first time, did someone suggest to.. Also, before you got your own puppy, was it always one dog or several.
No. I started getting less and less interested in people and started noticing dogs more and more. Nothing before I got my own dog.
Have you been with a guy before. Did you get hurt? That's probably more personal question that you might not be willing to talk about. So you got him as puppy, did you have to train him to ... have sex.
Yes, I've been with a man before. Did the guy hurt, the first time, Yes.
You don't train a dog for sex, you wait until they are ready, you then allow them to be sexual with you. I got him comfortable mounting, Knotting, licking and everything. Turning, took a long time to accomplish as he kept yanking his knot out.
Finally got it though and the longest I've been knotted is ten minutes. I'm hoping we can break that record, but we've both been unable to find the time.
He doesn't like to stay on my back, so turning was essential to learn.
Sorry I didn't mean hurt like that, I meant like emotionally. Was it just natural curiosity that got you curious about dog in that way. Like besides porn I am clueless about how it happenes. Do you have to guide him in you?
No. No men haven't hurt me emotionally.
No, I've had a deeper bond with dogs then I have humans. Like I said, lost interest in people.
I would love my puppy to take control and maybe one day he will, but I do guide him in, means he hits his target first time, every time.
But actually becoming attracted to animals, I have no idea, but it just clicked one day.
So his cock is bigger than humans and also the knot. Does it all hurt if not done properly.
Penis
It's completely different than a human cock.
Define Properly.
If you aren't prepared, yes. If your inexperienced, yes. If he rips the knot out, yes.
If you've had at least something up your bum, no. If you haven't in a while, use lube, no. If he pumps the knot in and out, yes and no. If he knots, turns and unloads, no, he will then wait until he's finished at which point his knot has shrunk enough to slip out and right back into his sheath.
Do you have to wash yourself after he unloads. Not sure if there's bacteria involved.
Sex with a properly cared for nonhuman animal has the same or less pathogenic risk than sex with a human. That said, bathing after sex is good practice either way... whether you got intimate with a human or nonhuman.
Does he bite or scratch while he's inside.
I'm not OP of this thread but they don't normally, to my understanding.
No! He cleans up his own mess.
My boy turns and we are ass to ass. That means no damage, just us Knotted together.
How old was he when you start having sexual relations with your 'puppy'? You have WarCanine worried that you were making sexually advances when he wasn't sexually mature and I want to clear things up for him.
I will always call him puppy as he will always act like a puppy.
He was 12 months old when he started showing signs of sexuality and we took months slowly learning and progressing.
Every species has its own mating rituals. These mating rituals could easily qualify as foreplay or the non human aequivalent to it.
A mare willing to mate will tease the stallion, she will appear to be ready for "it", but kick him off when he gets too close. You can literally see the tension building up in the stallion, getting excited more and more. When she´s ready, she won´t kick him off anymore and lets things happen. Not too far from the usual game that is played by some human females, right? ;)
From my own experience with my mare, I can assure you there definitely is some form of eroticism in animals. I remember scratching my mare´s neck, withers, flanks and back, she almost always responded with getting wet when she was in the mood. I also got fellated by her what she obviously enjoyed very much. She actually enjoyed being sucked on her teats as a part of foreplay, sometimes she even got into the mating position just from that. French kissing also was something she enjoyed as part of foreplay... Some of those actions she actively demanded by laying her head on my shoulder (kissing), positioning herself for cunnilingus when she expected my to "go down" on her, she even licked my penis with her eyes closed before I inserted it into her mouth.
When I was an employee of the last public stables, I used to feed all the horses at 5:30 AM. After finishing the feeding, I used to have some hours alone with her before other horseowners came. My mare got used to that rhythm and what she did in expectation of being mated by me soon was peeing...I remember walking towards her box and as soon as she heard me approach her, she immediately spread her hind legs and peed, turning her head towards me, giving me that look as if she was saying "Everything is clean and wet now, giddyup!". I even have a picture of her doing exactly this when I entered the stables early in the morning.
When I hugged her neck, she often used one of her front legs to kinda "grab" me, I also have a picture of that if you´re interested. Sometimes, we stood in this position, her front leg hooked to my legs, her head on my shoulders, kissing and hugging for ages. She also was a "talking horse", she always expressed her feelings by grunting, snorting and generally responding to my voice.
I guess that she probably has seen me in the same way I saw her...as the perfect partner. Everything we both did was some kind of foreplay, she even rejected advances from stallions, hiding behind me. She enjoyed getting showered very much , what usually led to intercourse shortly after. She often backed up into me when I was showering her tail and washing down her private parts, sometimes she immediately went into the mating position just from that.
I ´ll abstain from drawing absolute conclusions here, but based on these few anecdotal stories, I´d say we both were pretty much in honest and genuine love with each other. I´ll never forget how pissed she got when the circumstances kept me from fulfilling "my job" with her...boy, was she pissed!Me, too, btw! ;)
I´ll make a bold statement now: I honestly believe that my presence was as much of an aphrodisiac as hers was to me...we literally burned for each other inside, we simply HAD to sleep with each other almost every day to keep our peace of mind.
I have mentioned my little bj accident with her before, but the time we both had to endure after I had my circumcision was just terrible for both of us. More than six weeks without it....with terrible pain caused by every slight erection, I wasn´t able to fulfill her needs. My poor girl couldn´t understand why there was no "sexytime" and got gradually more and more demanding, I was smacked to the ground by her butt several times when she forcefully turned it towards me, oozing the clear slime of heat. She backed up on me , cornering me with her butt, spread hind legs and everything. She teased me, harder and harder, nibbling at me, not accepting any distance between her and me, fiercely demanding bodily contact.
I don´t know if any of that is foreplay in a human sense. But it surely was for her...and me. I´d even say that being in the presence of each other was OUR foreplay. I put lots of effort into adapting stallion behavior and it just seemed to have turned out even better than I had expected. The short, high squeals she emitted when I was biting her neck and withers, when I was sniffing her flanks are probably an almost dead giveaway we both actually had something that you can file under foreplay.
Fascinating. Of course, I'm not so able to offer meaningful feedback here, but it's evident that I may actually have to re-evaluate my own thoughts on nonhuman sexuality. Though, one thing I noticed is that the case of your mare is particularly sophisticated as it compares to what has been detailed with canines in this thread. I wonder if it's due to their being (ostensibly) more social animals, or if it is correlated with their intelligence, or perhaps a mix of both. Possible, too, is that your approach to sex was more sophisticated than that of the other respondents thus far, somehow. It's a shame that this can't be studied more thoroughly, as it would seem that at least in your case, there is a great deal of psychosexual homogeny between human and nonhuman.
You touched on it a bit with your talk about the 6 week hiatus, but how significant do you think the emotional element of the sex was for her? Also, while it would seem that her perspective on sex evolved as you explored with her, did your own perspective on sex become altered by her/evolve because of her at all?
I can´t prove it, but I really believe that the sex for her was as emotional as it was for me. I had her nibbling at me after sex , maybe out of gratitude maybe she felt safe and understood...who knows...she also tried to keep me with her as long as possible after sex. When I stepped away from her, she followed, sometimes complaining with a moan or throwing her head around.
Psychosexual homogeny....yes, I agree, we both had that. It was oozing out of us both to an extend that other people in the stables recognized it. Maybe that special psychosexual homogeny was what kept others from giving me/us a hard time although it was blatantly obvious that my love for my mare wasn´t platonic.
Another little detail that you should add to it is that I don´t see myself as human. Not in this childish, infantile way the furries and anthros are claiming to be an animal while all they do is playing an animal/their idea what it could be to be an animal. I really see myself as a horse stuck in a human body and that may be an explanation why I had this heavenly relationship with her...I adapted to her as much as I could. She adapted to me as much as she could. That´s the whole "trick"...
Well, the 6 weeks off was as hard for her as it was for me. I felt that she wasn´t okay with our little pause, she even acted a little strange as if she was scanning..."have I done something to make him refuse my advances?". I could feel it, she tried her best to make me hop onto her as she was used to, I also felt her growing desparation because she failed to understand why I refused to sleep with her...I also had to cut back on the cuddling, even the slightest erection (even after 22 years, I immediately got hard from cuddling with her) threw me into entire valleys of pain. Freshly circumcised? Not even my worst enemy deserves that, trust me...that is totally fucked up. My poor little girl couldn´t understand why I suddenly kept some emotional distance from her; I really think that she was sad. But you cannot imagine how quickly her mood went back to normal after I recovered...I still see her eyes and how she stared at me when we slept with each other the first time after my little pause. I can´t hardly remember having seen her more happy...she did some sort of "smiling" face and we both had really shattering orgasms. I did her three times within 4 hours; after that, it was feeding time and I went to do my job...took me roughly about 10 minutes to prepare and pour the pellets, then I returned to my girl to feed her hay. She still stood in exactly the same position as I had left her, head lowered, dozing off a bit, satisfied. Usually, she went right after the hay and tried to rip it from my arms before I could place it in the corner...she was a little muchy monster, you know...but this time, she raised her head and put it on my shoulder, silently grunting. I dropped the hay to cuddle her. Every now and then, when her head grew too heavy, I had to withdraw from our embrace...and she kept rubbing her head against me until I picked it up again to place it on my shoulder.Everytime. Absolutely not interested in munching although her hay was right at my feet. I got a little frightened because it´s a bad sign when horses refuse to eat. Picking up some hay, I offered it to her and luckily, she ate it....relieved from the fear of a colic, I started crying at the second I realized ...she preferred my company over her food.I kept feeding and hugging her, feeling this intense emotion of absolute unity and I would bet my entire life, me included, on the impression she´s felt the same way as I did....calm, relaxed, absolute equilibrum, glowing from the inside.Everything right where it belongs (also the title of a great Nine Inch Nails song you should listen to, btw...).
My own perspective on sex certainly altered over the years...when I still was a virgin, I already had an interest for , let´s call it " "spiritual sexuality". I read through many tomes of "sex magick", I studied the idea of Tantrism for a while, as well as other, even more obscure ideas about sex as a means to illumination. You could say, I was influenced in a certain way, headed for a certain direction. But nothing could have prepared me for what I have had with my mare. She basically taught me everything about love and sexuality, she literally made me, made me into what I am today. I have to add that I am an exclusive and don´t have any experience with anything else than mares, so I might be biased when I say that nothing can and will ever come near to what I have learned from her. That´s it...although I had some really impressive experiences before, this angel sent for me in the shape of a horse showed me heaven. I can only use single words to describe it: unison, harmony, peace. Something that´s bigger than life. A hidden, alternate universe. Paradise. Maybe it´s because I am a friend of psychedelics. Could be. But most often, I wasn´t tripping. I wasn´t even stoned..although I had THAT kind of experience with her often , too. Well, maybe the weed played a certain role, too....;)
[deleted]
"When I finally get around to killing myself"
PPfffttt thats the boring way around. Do as much as you can now, and then do more. May be a fairly long while before you're reincarnated back here on Earth ;)
[deleted]
This is awesome, 30-30. Thank you for this post.
I hope one day I will be able to have this kind of mutual understanding relationship that you had with your mare. All that physical and emotional closeness...courting her like a stallion does and getting all the right responses back must feel so amazing.
I can't wait to find the right mare partner for me. I hope I will see things clearly when it happens...
If you include contact that comes before sex as foreplay, then I think there are a number of examples which I've run across in the biology literature even outside of mammals; in particular I am thinking of birds. Many of their sexual behaviors are learned and refined through use. Even farther outside of that, I can think of some whiptail lizards which are all parthenogenic (all clones, created without sexual reproduction) where other females will mount a receptive female and provide stimulation to her.
I've witnessed a female black bear gving herself clittoral stimulation with a claw, while it's not exactly foreplay, it is in the realm.
On a personal note, my male dog will come up and rub his body against you affectionately, sometimes rolling into your lap and being very affectionate when he's seeking some special attention, while he's quite friendly, this is a behavior he does not exhibit otherwise.
One of the girls will push her way in to get at the face/mouth for licking when she's feeling amorous. She can be very insistent with it and will persist until she's gotten what she wants. She's a huge fan of digital stimulation and can get quite carried away with it.
[deleted]
Heh, I think most people here don't have much to say on it as alot probably never initiate. Honestly though, I'm surprised it wasn't asked sooner on here. Foreplay seems like it'd be a bigger deal, but I'm not really an authority on sex as it is. It's true that it is quite interesting, though. Each response seems to shatter the preconceptions about the nonhuman perspectives on sex in one way or another. While it may not be empirical, it's definitely food for thought, especially considering how human some of the behavior seems to be.
And to add to that... it adds to the question, is there an innate proclivity for foreplay, or are they picking up these traits from their human partners? And if it's the latter, is it being done actively or subconsciously? Added onto that, how much of an effect do foreplay inclined human partners have on the sexuality of nonhuman animals? And how might nonhumans be affecting the sexuality of their human partners? So many questions, yet no means to adequately answer them just yet.
[deleted]
I can say with Willow, she solicted the attention from me, not the other way around. It came at a time in my life when I was trying to suppress these feelings, ironically.
That said, having a tail-wagging, female deer ramming her ass into you with a surprising amount of force can make you think twice.
I'm sorry, there isn't a much nicer way to put this, but that's basically how what little I had happen, happened.
More of the same here.
Though what little contact I had may qualify as foreplay, it wasn't very long lived and I don't have much input as such.
Well, there is no 'foreplay' going on.
Unless you count any sexual contact that is not penetrative sex from behind.
But then I think 'foreplay' as a word is a little misleading.
I don't fuck her, but still have sexual contact with her.
She often mounts me from the right side of my right arm.
She jumps on top of my finger and then rides on it by humping on it and pushing my elbow into her.
But she gets tired fast and I have to do it for her.
But that's all she does and wants.
She doesn't want to receive oral or give oral.
She doesn't really want to get fingered, unless we're talking about my first example.
She backs away with these things instantly but sometimes lets it happen.
In that case, if I stop even for one second she's off and forget it even happened.
Unless I made her orgasm of course, which means that she's gonna race around the room.
She doesn't want to kiss me, but apparently lick my tongue because it has food taste.
Before any pedozoo gives me any advice like ''Should have taught her this when she was a puppy.''
No thanks, I don't touch non-sexually mature animals.
I don't want to rape and fuck up her hormones.
Now here's a question.
Why should I train my dog to have sex?
Shouldn't she just do that on her own if she really wants sex?
Because y'know, we're exploiting them in this way by learning them when they're young.
It really shows how people are right about animals not consenting to sex.
Everyone believes bullshit when they're young, another reason religion exists in 2000.
But as you can see, she's not very sexual at all.
In heat or not.
But then again, I didn't trick her into having sex with me when she was young, unlike other people here.
edit: It really pisses me off how sex with non-sexually mature beings is so accepted here.
Talk like this on any 'normal' human sex subreddit or site and you'll reach death before you even know it.
It's so fucking disgusting that I'm happy that bestiality is illegal.
Anyone who does this deserves death. <---- As you can see, I was a little pissed that day.
[deleted]
A friend of mine who was a wildlife biologist and a zoo once told me something profoundly simple and yet pretty likely to be universally true.
"every animal is different."
I have found this to be very true in my interactions with all species, not just in the zoo sense either. Probably applies here.
So you're telling me that only a little rape is good so they can get used to it?
Please, I fucking hope that I'm being a dumbfuck here and don't know what you're saying.
Sexual contact with non-sexually mature beings is sick, no matter what.
Weird, I've never seen a zoophile have a non-sexual animal before.
I'm the only one, huh?
Seems a bit, y'know, suspicious, no?
I think we have a lot of liars here in our little community here.
Oh, and not seeing a single animal like sex in any porn video doesn't exactly help either.
Edit: Downvotes?
Ooooh noo, I found someone's weak spot, huh?
Could somebody atleast give me an explanation? Because you're rather vague when you downvote my comment yet keep your mouth shut.
Oh please, show me your ways and tell me what's so bad about this comment.
I did not downvote, but as someone else said, the psychology of every (non-parthenogenic) animal is unique. You're using an availability heuristic ("I haven't seen it so it mustn't be true", "I've seen X so it must be true") to assert your one example as being proof of rape across the board in a population whose nonhumans nobody has a thorough understanding of from a statistical perspective. It is just as possible that 'sexually successful' zoophiles are more likely to participate in the community, or that your own observations are limited in scope or skewed in some way, though not necessarily to any fault of your own.
That said, attraction is significantly influenced by experience. While it is true that juveniles would be the most malleable in that regard, that same attraction needn't be induced by explicitly sexual behavior, and it is not out of the question that they would arise spontaneously(Rannoch's Willow comes to mind). It can also be said that attraction is learned; during the middle ages and renaissance era, and some way into the industrial revolution, more heavyset individuals were considered attractive in large part due to the association with high socioeconomic standing(They're considered disgusting now). Though, those attractions still may not form at all or be limited, in a case of "she's just not that into you". From a biological perspective, canid females are generally less inclined toward sex due to the rigors of K-selected reproduction selecting against frivolous mating(which can be observed in human females as they compare to human males). A genetic basis cannot be overlooked, either. Your partner may, through her breed or individual traits be less libidinous. Sadly, we haven't reached a point where we'd be able to say one way or the other regarding the genetic basis of libido in canids, so it cannot be verified yet.
Nobody likes being a porn actor, but humans are better actors. That, and porn studios don't care about understanding the animal or working in the interest of its comfort, if testimony from this community on the matter is any indication.
Hopefully that helped somewhat.
Actually, I've lived with dogs before who weren't sexual at all.
Males and females.
No spaying, no neutering, no nothing.
It's stacking up and building up a very obvious answer.
Yeah, not my fault I've never seen a true non-human who was into sex with humans.
And that's exactly what these people hide.
And where did you get this information?
How weird that when humans are recorded, they aren't being raped or drugged in porn videos...
Yet animals are?
With that fancy language, no.
But still, my experience and the fact that nobody believes that bestiality is right tells me enough.
I find it really funny how you aren't a zoophile, yet you support zoophilia.
I can never understand why humans would stand up for others.
What good does it do?
[deleted]
Excuse me, but is this what I think it means?
In my previous comments I already stated why I'm against that.
That means that the sexual attraction forms from having human parental figures. It's the same way a child in a white family will be more inclined toward a white partner, and it also means that it's largely unavoidable.
Oh, thanks for explaining.
That makes more sense.
Huh, you got me there, actually. Surveys observe pretty nominal things about porn stars(but don't let that get to your head -- I'm a biologist first). I was going off of memory with that one, but there are ample examples of porn stars that took to it terribly nonetheless. Brenn Wynson, Bree Olson, Vanessa Belmond, Jan Meza, and Brittni Ruiz are a few of the named actors that have been damaged by working in the porn industry. What numbers we have on them may be a bit skewed, though.
Yes, because limited perception yields limited experience. I'll address this better later in this post
It stands that they get paid to do it and therefore have an incentive even if they dislike it. Nobody is defending porn though, and it's not representative of zoos because, again, they don't care to open up the line of communication that zoos do. They're just roping Fido in for the money, first and foremost.
The former is still an availability heuristic. A sample that comprises 10, 20, even 100 subjects do not necessarily represent the whole, especially when they're geographically and culturally isolated(doubly so when the population that you're trying to represent comprise a population of 80 million. I could survey 100 Inuit about sex which would be much more authoritative considering how many inuit there are, but that would still only account for a limited range of cultures in a specific clime. Availability cascade bias("Everyone repeats it so it must be true") and argumentum ad populum fallacy for the latter. At any rate, I don't really distinguish too much when it comes to sexuality. Any sexuality is 'right' so long as there's no observable harm and consent is received. I never really cared about all the moral correctness that society places on things. Either it's ethical or it isn't. And if it is, then I don't really care what you do.
I have a shared interest in the sociopolitical success of zoophiles. If you want the wholly utilitarian truth of my involvement, then you can say that zoophiles are a means to an end for me. Other than that, though, it's because I feel like it. I prefer to wipe away vitriol where I can, because in the end it's terribly inefficient. Well, that and it's quite fun. Standing up for and helping others is something I find rather exciting. At any rate, "what good does it do?" is a moot question. A great deal of the activities that humans and nonhumans partake in can be questioned as such, but it doesn't make the motivations for partaking in said activities any less valid. We don't live in a utilitarian world.
It's how I write. * shrug *
I guess that's partly true.
I said partly because not every porn video I've seen gains them money. (Or do they?)
This.
I can hardly believe all people think this.
I've talked to so much people online and tried to convince them, but they didn't believe me.
You know, the answer was right in front of their eyes, yet they still keep trying to fight against it.
This is not ''I think bestiality is wrong because everyone else does it.'', but they are truly convinced that it's wrong because... I don't know?
I'm dying to know why SO MUCH people ignore the facts about that animals can consent to sex.
I've even seen people who thought bestiality was right being converted into zoophile haters because others told them so. It's so painful.
People don't believe this.
Seriously, bestiality is illegal almost anywhere.
I don't think this is a case of humans following the herd, there must be something else!
I can't believe that humans are THAT dumb.
There must have been done enough research for this, right?
As you can see, I'm quite dumb when it comes to this...
I'm blaming this day for being so bad.
I guess that's right and, well, your opinion, kind of...
I was just a little upset when I wrote that and say things like that.
Helps get in the eye of recruiters and builds rapport with the producers if they do it "pro bono". No immediate returns, but a job well done will get you recognition... and contracts.
On bestialists... yes. On fetishists, yes. On criminals, yes. On farmers that fuck their goats because their wives prefer the touch of silicone over their ED dicks, yes. On romantic zoophiles, no. Zoos are the most upstanding people in the spectrum of people attracted to nonhuman animals, and they're compared to those examples because those examples are the ones that get researchers funding. Well, that, and while empirical research is impartial, what people choose to research is not. It's a sad truth, but even researchers are less inclined to research something that they don't like or may challenge a strong belief they hold. Easier to study criminals and reaffirm your hate than to study upstanding people and realize they're not criminals
I enjoyed our discussion, at any rate. Also, pardon my social ineptitude, but what were you meaning to say after "kind of..."? C:
That's so strange.
While not most people are zoophiles, there are still a lot of us.
I mean, come on, it's almost 2017.
I would have expected thousands of researches to be made already.
Especially since bestiality is something so important.
So you did?
Well, I'm glad my signs of hostility didn't bother you in any way.
(And my lack of intelligence)
Also, I wasn't trying to say anything after ''kind of...'' I meant it like this: ''I guess that is kind of your opinion.''
From your earlier edit:
It is my problem that I don't understand everything you say.
I've told other people that if they don't understand what I say in English then it is their fault, so I guess it's also fair that this is my fault.
Because there's nothing wrong with your English at all.
After all, I am kind of young.
It's not. It's something people love to make an ugly face at, promptly forget about, then make another ugly face at 2 months later.
Er... yeah. College level writing and a strong focus on biology makes me a little verbose at times. Impresses the professors though.
It's not?
People take it VERY seriously. Zoophile or not.
Do you know how much disrespect and punishment you can get?
And well, it plays an important part in a zoophile's life.
I don't think it does. Don't get me wrong, I like sex a lot, but it isn't the most important thing in the relationship. I spend far more time with my partner doing a vast number of non-sexual things and only a very tiny part of our time doing sexual things. If you're focusing on the tiny sliver of life and not the grander part, you're mising out on a whole lot.
I'm not saying sex is more important than other things in a zoophile relationship.
Sex is less important, but it still IS important.
Really, I don't know why we're even begging to remove those bestiality laws.
Might as well keep them, then.
They take it seriously for a few minutes when it's on the news, but it doesn't actually affect them so they forget about it until it's time to be serious about it again. Just because it triggers a violent response doesn't mean it's actually important to them... they just feel strongly about it. I feel strongly about genocide, for instance. I think it's so terrible a thing that words can't do it justice... but it's not important, either. Genocides are uncommon and I've never witnessed one. So even though I feel strongly about it, it's also not important to me. It does mean that I'm somewhat manipulable though. If, say, a bill that would protect against genocide were put to vote, I'd likely support it before reading the fine print for the riders. Do I obsess over genocide though? No.
Hope that explains it.
Well, yes... I understand, but... There's people who spend a lot of time catching zoophiles, trying to convince people that bestiality is wrong, etc.
If all those people in Steam don't think it's important, then why do they feel the need to hunt me so badly?
People devote their lives doing shit like this.
edit: Who's the guy obsessed with upvoting my comments? Lmao.
I've been upvoting everyone to boost morale. It works well enough.
And this is the internet. Some people on the internet thrive on being gaping assholes on here and they just choose whatever they have a slight dislike for to capitalize on.
You asked why people are against having sex with animals...let me sort it out for you. The first and foremost, yet somehow hidden reason is that humans need to feel "superior" for their own self image. This isn´t entirely motivated by religion, atheists also have this bias towards "human superiority". When a human has sex with an animal, it´s like an aristocrat marrying a working class person, the same sort of mind mechanism. There´s an old term for having sex with animals called "zoostuprum" , roughly translated to "animal desecration". But it´s not the desecration of the animal that is so controversial, it´s the desecration of human dignity by "marrying below your rank". A slave owner does not marry a slave. The CEO won´t marry the cleaner person. You get the idea, I hope.
Sigmund Freud separated the human consciousness in three : the self, the ego and the super ego. The self is what you are when heavily drunk, for example. Ancient Romans had this proverb "In vino veritas"...In wine there lies truth, referring to the unfiltered self that becomes predominant when drunk. Then, there is the ego. The ego is the part of you that´s selfish, entirely in for own benefits and gratifications of any kind (sex, money, fame, etc...). And there is the super ego...that´s what you want others to see in you as well as what you like yourself to be. The "optimized" version of you, so to say. The average human rarely reaches the stage of "self", only a few humans who utilize certain meditation techniques or drugs do actually live as "selfs". The vast majority of humans are stuck to the "ego" level of consciousness and mistake the self image they have for this "ego" although their self image is almost entirely leaning to their "super ego", the self optimized version of themselves. This usually is achieved through self deceit (Aluzky: "I´m a total, accomplished, genuine and honest zoophile!" ...."Yeah, I do other people´s dogs behind their back...") and selective perception of oneself. I have mentioned it before that I consider zoophilia, the genuine, non selfish form of it, as psychedelic. A true zoophile´s duty doesn´t end at gaining enough knowledge to copulate safely with another species, it also includes the duty to become less human and more animal like to ensure better communication, shifting the consciousness away from the ego (human "specialty") and towards the self (animals don´t have egos, only selfs). Adaption, leaving behind the "normal" human mindset. That´s why there is such a huge discrepancy between the average zoo self image and what others see in a zoo. You can screw around with countless species, but that won´t make you less of a human, with all of the faults, lies, and self deceit involved. What can alter the perception of zoophiles is actually altering your own consciousness, becoming more self than ego, becoming more animal than human. As Friedrich Nietzsche said: "Der Mensch ist nur eine Brücke zwischen Tier und Übermensch" (Man only is a bridge between animal and Über human...btw, this isn´t meant the way the nazis misunderstood and used it).
With the limited space in here, all I can do is giving you some recommendations: you can find Freud´s model of human consciousness in his books, you also should read the books of Wilhelm Reich and Carl Gustav Jung to further study the three minds model. Another remarkable theory has been created by the 70s psychedelic Dr Timothy Leary in his book "Game of life". He proposes an eight minds model, including the mind under influence of certain neurochemicals. I´d recommend you to read this, too as it sheds a whole new perspective of the human mind. Robert Anton Wilson also favors this eight minds model and I really urge everyone in here to give his books a shot. They´re funny, they´re witty, they´re enlightening.
If you really want to understand zoophiles and bestialists on a deeper level, you should arm up with some theories of the mind you can use to derive better understanding of why. To see through the jungle of human self deceit, to gain clearer vision of what "we" really are. After you read these theories, you´ll see clearer....you know where fetishes come from, you know the mechanisms of imprinting and learning, you realize how little every single human lives in the actual, real world and how much he lives in his own reality tunnels, doing everything to defend his reality tunnels against the "hard reality". If you want to understand more, please read these authors. It´s important. For you. For mankind. For true zoophilia.
^^^Great, ^^^another ^^^wall ^^^of ^^^text.
^^^Thanks, ^^^30.
You're telling me they do this to boost their ego?
I doubt that, people legitimately think that bestiality is wrong.
Yes, I know this was one of the reasons.
But what do you say to people like that? Like, okay, good for you that you think that? It doesn't make it wrong, or at least in my eyes.
I see... I don't even know what to say.
I'll save your comment for this.
Thanks, I guess.
That is right.
But every bad person in our community, everything people say about us.
It stacks up and the lies somehow become true and doubt myself.
I've seen lots of zoos with non-sexual animals. There was a prominent one on knotty.
Fucking finally.
Took some time, but I've finally heard it for the first time, kind of weird, mmmm...
Now, let's just hope they weren't being forced to have sex, huh?
My zoo relationship is totally non-sexual, because my partner isn't interested.
[deleted]
No problem. I know one other guy who isn't on Reddit as well who's in a romantic-only relationship with no sexual contact involved.
Ahem.
For anyone wondering, my comment was deleted.
This is exactly what I said: ''Thanks for telling me. No really, I've never seen other zoophiles admit this before.''
I often drive myself insane with the thoughts that I am wrong and question everything. So this helps.
I was wondering what happened to it. FWIW I've had romantic feelings for my partner since 2009-ish (though I didn't have the confidence to start officially calling her my partner until a few years ago) with no sexual contact the entire time.
I'd rather not tell.
I know I'm acting a little bit weird and that this'll make you curious.
But I can't exactly tell you why.
Let's just say that I'm very paranoid about a certain thing happening.
Given she was female, I kinda doubt it. She wanted a standard heterosexual relationship with her male dog. He was uncomfortable with it. She let it go. She was very vocal about this.
I believe you're looking for GSDLove, or similar username.
Oh yeah I remember her now that you mention it.
Yep.
I have her on Skype but I'm afraid to use Skype now, so I haven't seen her since knotty went down.
[deleted]
I wasn't.
I just get a little curious when people leave downvotes, yet no replies.
I guess it must be easier to click one button than actually tell the person what is wrong.
This is still wrong.
Humans are still touching a non-sexually mature animal and will confuse it, even if it doesn't, it doesn't understand it and for that reason it is wrong.
If you think that's right then it also should be right to touch children this way.
And this is not an excuse.
If our acts are harmful then we should stop.
An animal's health and well being > our sexual urges.
Let's just hope most people agree with me here because It's very obvious that we have sex for selfish reasons.
I might me more sexual than you, but I mostly am not a sexual person myself. In that case, you changed my mind, though.
I've never heard stories where zoophiles don't have non-sexual animals until now.
I know I shouldn't, but I'm believing you, which puts my mind at ease a little.
I haven't watched too much, but not just a little, either.
I'd say that it would be enough for me to judge it.
I've only seen videos where animals are uncomfortable, drugged or most stuff is off camera and without sounds.
With the exception of one...
Probably TMI, but it was a video of a male dog being fucked.
I think huskyencroacher was talking about intimate but not sexual contact at that age, so that they're comfortable with their partner exploring their body and more comfortable when that contact becomes sexual. IE if we only ever touched shoulders, then I went straight to your crotch, you'd probably not like that. If we explored eachother's bodies before reaching the crotch, we'd be much more comfortable about it.
You're comparing sexual contact with a species that has sex in front of crowds with that of the species whose most defining characteristic is the amount of baggage they have. The two can't be meaningfully compared like that, unfortunately.
FWIW if I was so inclined to have a nonhuman animal partner, their own sexual satisfaction would be priority #1, same as any other relationship. A fair number of zoos on here exclusively fellate or masturbate their partners, which is in a similar vein. I'm not sure how that's selfish, unless following through on a desire to pleasure another is selfish. I mean, tangentially I suppose it is, but at its core that kind of stuff isn't, I feel. Sex also has a number of health benefits for nonhumans, too, same as with humans.
This I am fine with.
Except I literally took it as something like this: Touching an animal's private parts to get it used to being touched on that specific place.
Yet people always compare animals and humans when talking about bestiality.
But what I'm saying is that touching a non-sexually mature human and non-sexually mature animal will have similar effects.
Well, I know not exactly the same effects...
It would have a much worse effect on a human child.
But in the end it would be rape because sexual contact is sexual contact and they both aren't sexually mature.
Main reason why I shy away from having penetrative sex from behind with her.
Well, you need sexual urges yourself to ''help someone else out'' and for that reason you're always doing it for yourself in some way.
I don't think a person like you would masturbate an animal because it's asking for it, right?
You're not against bestiality, but you're not a zoophile either so you don't have any sexual thoughts about animals, so I don't expect you to ''help it out'' like that.
But you're right, it's not 100% selfish.
Honestly, if it's an intact nonhuman animal that I'm caring for, I'd probably do it if they somehow made it clear that they wanted it from me in particular. Regardless of whether I'm attracted to them, unrequited lust is absolute torture, and well, I would be bringing them pleasure(which is part of the point of having a pet). A nonhuman's desires come before my sexuality, because I have outlets, and they don't. Though, it should be noted that I also have mastery of my own sexual inhibitions. I transitioned away from using morals to secular ethics years ago so I don't really have any problems with carrying out sexual acts, even if I'm not terribly into it/them. Sexual contact is also in some ways like a drug -- a safe and healthy drug that happens to be free and has no negative side effects.
Similar effects, maybe.
The "we don't have any evidence because nobody checked" maybe.
Nobody checked sadly, and the nonhuman(or perhaps nonsocietal) approach to sexual consequences may be too unique for us to know for certain until a study is done. I'll eagerly concede that it's best to err on the side of caution and not really worth it to pursue it before sexual maturity if society would frown more upon it, but we have to take care not to anthropomorphize nonhuman animals too much in the wrong places.
The fact that you can do that without throwing up is truly fascinating.
I mean, I hardly believe it.
You sound way more responsible than some other zoophiles I've met online.
I want to repeat it again.
You sound way more responsible than some other zoophiles I've met online.
Mr. Al, are you secretly lurking here? Take notes, if you're not busy shagging other people's pets.
I think it's obvious that if you have any sexual contact with a non-sexually mature being, it gets confused and doesn't know what is going on.
I mean, this is something animals learn on their own.
Aren't you ''interrupting'' their process of learning about sex if you do this?
And weren't there guides to have sex with dogs who told us things like these?
Well I can't help but feel like the revulsion is learned. I've got a very scientific approach about these things. If it's not likely to get me sick, I have no reason to be averse to it. Not really rational to be afraid of dicks and vagoos. Course' that means they'd need a bath before I'd consider obliging them, but it feels like that should be a rule of thumb, anyway.
Augmenting is more likely than interrupting. If you want a weak analog, children exposed to sexual content be it through movies, tv or the internet began exploring earlier, more often, and more expansively. It's possible that earlier sexual contact makes nonhumans more exploratory about and inclined toward sex, but I can't say for certain, as there's yet again the lack of research to contend with.
Probably, but those guides were also probably more educated guesses than anything as it related to 'the fuck ups'.
Let me jump in for a second:
"A fair number of zoos on here exclusively fellate or masturbate their partners(...)I´m not sure how that´s selfish."
You should try to abstain from drawing false conclusions. The act itself can be selfish or not. It´s depending entirely on the mindset of the person in question. Zoophilia is complicated, there´s a million reasons to engage in sexual acts with an animal and when your main reason is what I call "dick worship", then selfishness can legitimately be assumed. Example: Many "zoophiles" have the fantasy of sucking off a stallion. Although a stallion hardly reaches his climax by this, it´s still considered "hot" and desirable...the stallion´s satisfaction isn´t what these folks have in mind. What they´re really after is the fantasy of fooling around with a gigantic penis, fantasies of "being impaled" by this large rod. They do everything to be able to fulfill their fantasies, they learn about the Crump technique, they discuss how to keep him erect for longer although "stallion magic" is over after one minute. This really isn´t about the horse at all, they´re solely focused on making their gigantic shlong fantasies come true. The "well endowed stallion", the rapidly humping dog, the "wild" and forceful mating of animals, that´s what these "zoophiles" are after. Maybe you could compare it to the big number of human males with a "gigantic boobs" fetish... even if the girl is the worst regarding character, the fetish always prevails. "Huuuuge Boooobs, dude!"...I´m sure you also know quite a lot of these men. But if you´re only interested in bodily features, not the individual having them, it´s absolutely legitimate to assume selfishness. Deriving pleasure from pleasuring another may not look like a selfish behavior, but it can be selfish when the pleasure of the other is nothing else than a lie you tell yourself to justify your own pleasure. Please refrain from overgeneralisation. Things aren´t as simple as you like them to be.
I normally make it a habit to neutralize definitives with "mostly" "unlikely" etc, but sometimes it fudges the sentence structure or I just forget; it's safe to assume that I never mean never and never mean always, except when noted otherwise.... like now. I much prefer higher levels of organization over basal conceptualization, but approaching casual discussion with that higher level of order makes things more difficult for everyone sometimes.
In this case, there already was a certain expectation about the people that we were discussing. Recall that it was a question of "we" from warcanine, and I can make some basic assumptions about his demographic and thus adapt the 'zoo' definition to suit it. I wasn't really concerning myself with the mindset of fetishists or nonromantic zoos with that post because they were never relevant to the discussion at that point.
Sorry for any confusion these conventions may have caused.
Wait, having sex with non-sexually mature beings is accepted here? News to me. Where?
The closest to supporting this I saw was aluzky, and even he argued that it was only "ok to be a pedo but not to act on it." In other words, you can't control your fantasies, only your actions.
Ironic he failed at that so hard.
BamTwig's comment, first sentence, third word.
Also, I've seen others say things like this, just not here.
Nobody ever says something about it. I've even seen excuses like: ''bestiality is sick in the first place.'' or because ''animals need to get used to it.''
TBH that doesn't make it any better.
And Aluzky is just a fucking retard.
Maybe even more than all of us autists combined. What a fucking accomplishment.
It seems more like he was using the word as a way of saying that the then puppy could be more affectionate than usual, which led up to using it to communicate more amorous intent. I believe that, at least this time, your outrage is a bit misplaced. Perhaps /u/BamTwig would like to verify.
That's how I took it. I feel you are looking for an endorsement of behavior where there is none, WarCanine.
My outrage is a bit misplaced?
I'll tell you, it usually is misplaced, just like all my other emotions.
No need to worry about any of that.
Anyways, took this from his other comments...
Tricking a puppy into doing that...
Disgusting.
He never actually discloses the age of the canines in question. He seems to refer to a particular dog as his "puppy" regularly, and that dog is clearly sexually mature. It's likely just a pet name.
Well, has he said anything about this himself?
I'm worried and you understand that, right?
Or am I really just overreacting, like always...?
Well, no concerns are without a cause, no matter how much those concerns are retaliated against. I'll drop him a line and see if he'll give us an age.
Being a Labrador, he is.
1) Always Happy
2) Always Playful
3) Always Cuddly
That makes him my puppy forever no matter how old. Currently my puppy is two years old.
Thank you!
He started introducing his dog to it at around 12 months when he started showing signs. He is now two years old.
I really wish you would've lied to make to make me feel better.
Thanks for some extra trauma...
I'll quote what he said.