I absolutely adore when animals communicate that they want to be pet. For instance cats rubbing themselves on your hands, or dogs who carefully poke you with a paw when you stop petting them, as if asking "hey, why did you stop?"
It's so cute!
There are some videos about this on youtube, teaching people how to notice whether a dog wants to be pet or not. Teaching pet owners both about subtle "no" signals (e.g. turning away head) and "yes" signals. One of the videos even calls this a "consent test"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cGDYI-s-cQ
I think that this should be taught to more people, especially kids. Kids often think that all animals should be petted, and don't understand the body language of other species.
Oh, and also, this is useful when arguing against anti-zoos - if animals can consent to being touched in general, what's to stop them from consenting to sexual touch as well?
I love this too. My favorite way dogs do this is by pawing at me. It's very cute when I'm in the middle of scratching their ears and stop for a second. My parents' dog (an old Australian cattle dog mix) will bat at me with his paw and press his head into my leg.
Of course, he'll also paw at the table legs if dinner is over and no one is eating, because apparently that's scrap time. Too smart for his own good, sometimes.
Respect for the agency of nonhuman animals is always wonderful to see.
I agree that this is very important information. Lots of people don't try to strengthen communication with their nonhuman companions enough. It doesn't help that treating them like ragdolls or furniture is kind of reinforced by the general perception of nonhuman animals(less so now, thankfully, but it stands to improve significantly). Perhaps one day something like this will be part of the standard curriculum, though it's somewhat difficult to create a standard for it as a good amount of the communication attempts by nonhumans may prove to be novel as well. It's certainly a goal worth working toward, regardless.
Ostensibly so, I'd say. Putting these principles into practice would prove invaluable, of course, but many people consider petting to be everyday physical contact. Many people pet their nonhuman companions idly, without even paying it a thought. They'd immediately assert that petting isn't going to cause physical or psychological harm to them, or that the language is subtle enough that a zoo may not pick up on it before it causes harm. Additionally, if they accept the idea of this as being proper consent, they would assert that this effectively retroactive consent is not sufficient for such intimate and personally significant contact; which they would likely believe should be consented to before the deed is done. Else, they would say that nonverbal consent offers too much ambiguity for us to know for certain, or default to "They can't offer informed consent".
That said, it still helps to have it in our portfolio regardless.
First, I just watched the linked youtube vid....OMG! THIS has to be "taught" to anybody, THIS isn´t seen as no brainers? More than 1850 peeps gave this a thumbs up...WTF! Who really needs to be taught to avoid cornering animals, for example? Is it me who isn´t even a dog person at all, but still in posession of enough common animal sense, or is mankind really drifting away completely from any connection to the planet and the life it harbours? Gosh...
Although I support your efforts to improve your animal-human communication, I´d strongly advise to stick to scientific research. Pop science youtube vids may not be the most reliable source for real facts...;) But basic willingness for keeping up to date with science´s progress is a good thing; I even believe it is a genuine zoophile´s duty to keep track of the latest findings of science regarding animal-human interactions. Our orientation , when understood as a true friendship (phileía), literally forces us to upgrade ASAP when new data/insight/studies is/are available.
Regarding your last suggestion, I can only contribute that sexuality has a different meaning for humans and one never should make the mistake to simply transpose his/her human expectations and beliefs onto animals. Sure, you could argue about consent and how obvious a dog wants to keep getting petted and such...sure, you can also argue that for animals, sex isn´t such a overintellectualised concept as it is for humans, but let me remind you this isn´t fact, this is just your belief what sex is for a quadruped. Fact is, nobody knows for sure. Certainly there are some signals in animals legitimising the thesis you tend to lean to...but there are other factors often forgotten or denied allowing to draw other conclusions. Every new study on animal behavior digs up another small bit of how close and similar animals are to humans and every "human" emotion has been verified in non human individuals too, isn´t it totally legit to assume that, with all the physical, psychological and emotional similarities of animals and humans, THEY understand love in a similar or closely corresponding way, too?
I´ve seen animals hiding from their herd to poop and pee. I´ve seen humans openly urinating and defecating in public. I´ve seen a vast array of signs for actual love in animals and I have seen more than enough "normal" relationships in which "love" is a synonym for violence, constant arguments, an emotional cockfight etc...
That said, is it really legitimate to assume sex is for animals "just everyday business without the emotional weight humans irrationally add to it"? Humans have assumed so much about animals in the past centuries and science gradually lifts the veil, uncovering our past atrocities our beliefs and assumptions made morally legitimate. Is it really beneficial to repeat the same mistake and assume that animals don´t suffer just because they "don´t seem to worry" That´s my personal favorite and number one in my list of stoopid "zoo" justifications , btw. ;)
I´d prefer sticking to facts. We simply don´t know what animals see sex like. And before you argue about undisputable physical reactions of male animals, a boner can be the result of true love, but also just a biological trigger pulled. Manipulating your animal´s genital and calling the erection a proof for anything doesn´t look like bulletproof evidence to me.
Please don´t misunderstand me, I too lean to your side. With all the small hints, the experience I had with my mare, I´d back you up on that anytime. The only thing I´d try to avoid at all costs is too much certainty. We don´t want to be accused of confirmation bias, supporting our wrong views of animals as live sex toys, ready to perform at will, do we?
People only do that as an excuse.
We can just do exactly the same. ''You aren't a zoophile and for that reason you just don't believe us. You don't know how we live and so your opinions don't count anymore.''
See? Doesn't make sense at all.
I think it's worse when we're not sure if our actions are harmful or not.
Most zoophiles had sex with an animal so it doesn't really help to say that.
We can't just say ''Yeah, maybe it's wrong.''
That makes it worse because it's implying that we still had sex with animals while we're not even sure if it's wrong or not.
But it's not like it matters anyway.
They outnumber us and for that reason they don't even have to make sense.
A person could say we're evil humans trying to destroy the world on purpose and others would believe it and applaud that person.
I guess you haven´t been talking to a lot of outsiders eye to eye about zoophilia...might be an explanation why you have the notion that even the least little amount of doubt can backfire the way you voiced it ("You fuck animals and don´t even know whether it´s wrong or right!"). But I can assure you that this is not how it works.
Being a blockhead , insisting on the "beneficial effects sex with animals has" and similar beliefs presented as facts is what scares the bejeezers out of "normies". The impression of a brainwashed z-zombie flexing and bending everything according to his own agenda definitely has more accompanying negative effects on our cause.
I´ve never heard an agrument from a normal turning into the direction you assume here; quite on the contrary, I´ve been seen as a reasonable zoophile, not blind for all the little grey zones and controversial issues our orientation has to offer. Some even mentioned that exactly my doubts were what kept them from filing me under " loco animal fucker detached from reality" immediately.
I doubt that this little detail you brought up has any vast effect on how we are perceived in public. Never seen any opposition claiming "you´re an animal rapist because you don´t even have certainty whether or not you´re doing wrong".
I advise you to get out an talk to some outsiders , primarily to get in contact what really makes them tick and how they perceive things. This can be a very precious experience for you...and you don´t even have to expose your own sexuality to them to start a conversation. A simple "Woah! I´ve seen some pretty weird stuff on the internet!" kind of approach suffices. No risk involved for you, but lots of things you can learn with such a "reality check". It´s important to stick the head out of the filter bubble every once in a while. ;)
When explained properly and with all due respect for the perspective of someone NOT watching animal porn during breakfast every day, you´ll soon learn that the picture of a society completely opposed to and hating on zoophilia is vastly exaggerated and biased as fuck. You´d be surprised by the many individuals who can get along perfectly fine with zoophilia and a zoophile when basic ethic and moral standards are involved. Refraining from the illusion to possess the last , undisputable and final "truth" about zoophilia is such a standard and can be very helpful to dismiss the "sick animal fucking cultist brainwashed by filter bubble" will be helpful and is appreciated by almost anyone not into this like we are.
The common "us vs. them" mentality hasn´t got us anywhere. Maybe we should exchange it with a "Well, I´m a zoo, but not interested in sheepishly believing what either side´s prejudices are (remember: positive prejudice also is prejudice). I don´t even have to lie to people about this...I´m more interested in what the fuck is really happening than I am in participating in the usual trench fight. I want to know. Not believe...
"Only madmen are 110% sure of themselves"
[deleted]
There once was a guy in my class many many years ago. I come along the way on campus as he is petting a chained up dog. The dog is already deep rumbling and showing some teeth. I told him to stop petting the dog. He turns, starts to tell me off like "Wtf are you talking about?" in that tone of voice. He was bitten into his hand in the middle of "What...". It didn't look pretty. He afterwards said dogs are stupid assholes and should be poisoned, as well as that it was my fault that he got bitten a few times.
Avoided him after that day.
TL;DR: Never bank on common sense, there is neither a "common", nor much "sense" floating around.
Uhm...you see one guy doing idiot things and therefore deny the existence of common sense? How´s that different from seeing one asshole violently abusing his pet and assuming that we all are this way?
Yeah,yeah, I know....THEY are irrational and have prejudices, but I have "my own special way of perceiving things and enough life experience to know what a person is like even before I met this person". Only others are mad. Sure. He´s an alcoholic, but I need my beers only to get through the day. Self biased declination of terms, caused by the ego and the lack of discipline. He´s a pervert fucking everythig, but I only have noble intentions being sexually adventurous....do I have to continue?
Sure , in the age of pussygrabbers in the most powerful position the first world has to offer, common sense seems not to prevail...but when you look closer, it´s a fact that almost three fourths have NOT voted for rapey can of Fanta. Common sense still intact....although the repercussions of the one fourth actually voting for him might be disastruous.
There wasn't enough time in my day and not enough space on this webpage to list all examples of individual failures of common sense observed throughout my life which help build the conclusion enough individuals (x/100) lack it in any given situation, that it is too dangerous to assume "Ah, na, this isn't dangerous. Common sense would tell pedestrians coming along not to pet the bull."
You will find some idiot why scaled the fence and managed to annoy/disturb the bull so much he gets attacked, eventually. And that's why you have a litte sign at the fence "danger, bull". Because if you don't have it, said idiot will win a case against you that it isn't obvious bulls might be dangerous and the fence is there for a reason.
I had to learn how my cats communicated with me. Took me years to figure it out on my own, and even then I had to do independent research, and figure out each cat after because none of them approached the issue the same way. Cat isn't my native language(nor was it theirs, in some capacity), and as a kid, figuring it out on your own outside of some more rudimentary principles can be very difficult. Not everyone lives in a household with nonhumans either, mind you.
Mind you that the only animal in our house was a dog when I was growing up. Not a single horse anywhere near within the next 5 kilometers.
Maybe it´s not just trying to flatter me by saying "You´re a natural with horses", but the truth...I just don´t know. To me, animal behavior is kinda self explanatory and I never had to "learn" anything I hadn´t already known internally, deep inside.
It just puzzles me that others do not have the same natural connection to animals...how´s that a thing, how´s that even material for discussions in HERE, a sub dedicated to folks who love their animals "just a little bit too much?" sigh
Sorry. I´ll gonna have to quit the net for today and actualise/adjust my weltbild. I always thought that this effortless communication with animals was what defined our orientation...
To pervert a quote from a certain game, is it better to be born knowing how to communicate with everything, or to be born without that knowledge and being motivated to overcome your social shortcomings? It's something I know all too well, actually. Nothing came naturally for me, not even with humans. I had to learn every social nuance from the ground up; facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, even. Having a natural intuition with any species, even your own, isn't a given. You had the fortune of not needing to earn your intuition. That said, I pray that you do not see such... biological inequities as objectively bad traits. At least for me, it proved to be humbling and my experiences with it lent themselves to my demeanor.
Don´t worry, I don´t see it as a bad trait. I even think that living with that would be quite a hinderance or disturbing for non zoo people and not exactly beneficial in any way.
When I say that I´m born for this, I don´t say this as a justification. It is a fact others also recognise in me. If I got one Euro for every time another horseowner said "natural", "half-horse" or "You´re born for this" to me, I could buy everyone in here enough beer to get the entire sub shitfaced drunk really badly. Before I moved to my own farm, I taught riders, beginners and advanced and also was the one who was asked to do/ride correctures on horses. Often horses you´d call "difficult". People paid me for that. When my mare died, I quit that job ´cause I couldn´t even imagine staying at the farm, walking past my mare´s now deserted box. Was quite a huge step for me to take, but I had no choice. After we moved, I decided to earn money with selling my hay to the riding clubs in my new local area (moved more than 250 kilometers). The second time I unloaded bales there, I witnessed a rider panicking on her bucking horse. I gave some commandos as I saw the resident riding instructor failing on his job ,only suggesting " hit this stupid animal! He has to obey you!" in a gradually increasing volume. I managed to caml down both horse and rider, the situation went back to normal and I talked to the girl, listing the mistakes she makes when riding her horse and explaining how these mistakes can be avoided easily. She dismounted and said she already was desperate and feels she has no control over her horse. I offered to show her easy solutions, she nodded and I got into the saddle....a mid 40´s guy with dreadlocks down to his knees, a slight weed hangover, a neck tattoo of his mare and ...enough dressage skill accompanied by what germans call "Ein Händchen für Pferde"..."advanced horse sense nobody has seen before here" (Original quote). Now I have to train this horse an hour every three days, as well as some other "problematic" horses I work with once a week. You can´t run from your destiny, I guess. I was born for horses. They are my meaning of life, the reason why I live, why I get up every morning. I don´t know what or who programmed me that way before my birth, but to me, it´s only fair to be granted with an intuitive understanding of animals, especially horses when you´re sent into this life as a horse in a human body...and I don´t mean this in a "furry"/"anthro" way. Sometimes I tend to forget that I am gifted with that and others need to learn what I had in me since the day I was born.Sorry, mate.
This is probably one of the reasons we're treated like shit.
People misunderstand animals and think they are simple robots without emotions or intelligence and just like being petted all day.
It's extremely bothering when I have to explain some really simple answers. ''Yes, dogs can do that.''
But yes, I love it when animals communicate in such a way.
It's interesting and it feels good to understand each other.
Their language is also one of the reasons that animals are better than humans.
The way animals demand things don't piss me off as fast, and sometimes not at all.