Hey, I'm the same person of this topic btw https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/5yktmm/becoming_zoophilic_at_22_after_being_asexual_for/
This is not a help thread, it's just for the sake of science and because I think we know something most people don't know, being the reason why I make this thread here.
I have always had this question. I have relatives that studied psychology (and psychoanalysis) but I wouldn't ask them about this because it would be very suspicious. I've been in some discussions about wether the human or all species have an instinct or not, and everyone always disagred with me about this, and I would like to know what you think about this because I think it's very interesting and I don't think I am absolutely right, I just think there's something people are ignoring or missunderstanding, or maybe I'm just confused.
The thing is that I see what it happens to be a big contradiction when talking about sexual orientation, instinct and pulsion. I am studying psychology for an exam and I just found these texts that explain how sexuality works different in humans and animals.
I like psychoanalysis, I think it's very interesting and I love reading about it, but I have this concern when I read about this "difference between human and animal sexuality", because it just doesn't make much sense to me.
Freud explains that we humans have "pulsion", and that animals have "instinct". He explains that our sexuality (regarding any kind of pleasure including copulation) is built up from the moment we are born and that it can be molded to anything, not necessarily to our opposite sex, because we don't have an instinct of always looking for the opposite sex and reproducing. I totally agree with this so far, seems logical, but let me continue with what Freud and the psychoanalysis in general states. Freud says that animals, on the other hand, have an instinct of always copulating only with their opposite sex of the same species, because it's a "reproduction instinct". It sounds easy to understand, and logical too, but I always see things that make me not believe this. I always studied animals (as a minor hobby) and had pets and such and from what I know, they don't have such instinct, they seem to have something similar as Freud mentions about humans, or libido, because it's pretty normal to see male animals copulating with other male animals (and female with female too, I see this in dogs a lot), or with other species, like they don't really care and the only thing they have is that, a pulse of sexuality.
However, I do believe that there might be a thing that is stronger in humans than in animals, which is sexual orientation. I think sexual orientation is in other species too, but way more strong in societies, because it shows in all kind of social and psychological media, and the human race has a more systematized society than most animals, at least mammals. Most straight humans wouldn't have sex with someone with their same sex just because that was the only option they had that day or because they were "meh" at it (same for homosexuals and the opposite), the same way a normal person wouldn't have sex with an animal just because they had a lonely week and just want to have sex. They wouldn't even consider such a thing. But in animals I see this pretty often, like they just seek what feels most comfortable for them, or what they are already used to, or what they grew up seeing. I might be wrong, I surely am wrong about some of these things, but there's no way for me to check if this is wrong or not because if I talk about this with an average person they will always say that all species have a reproduction instinct including us, which means that everyone feel only attracted to their same species. And if I aska psychoanalyst they will always say animals have such instinct and us humans don't.
What I'm trying to say is that from my point of view, such instinct doesn't exist at all, not in humans nor in animals. I think we all have pulsion and libido in common, it's just that one is more influenced by society than the other, but in terms of the raw psyche, it's all the same.
People only imagine rapists when they think about zoophiles, because they believe this. If you don't believe zoophiles are only rapists, then how would you explain this? I would explain this by saying that the animals also seek sex in what they are used to see, and are more indiferent than humans about it, maybe with a very little sexual orientation or none at all, which makes them just go for what feels comfortable because their social standards are different and lower because they don't share our enormous social media.
If this common belief and psychoanalystic statement was true then how is it possible that a lot of no-rape and consensual zoo porn can be found on the internet? or how is it possible that animals have homosexual sex, or interspecies sex too? where's the instinct? I just see a sexual pulse. I believe instincts exist, but I wouldn't call this one in particular an instinct.
If I am right, does this mean this whole thing about psychoanalysis is wrong? I don't think you have to be a genius animal investigator to know what I know, and if this is so, then Freud was just being very ignorant and rushing about this when he made his statements about sexuality? or was he religious or something? I can't find a logical answer to this. Maybe the reason is because Freud investigations happened when most of other very important psychological studies were taking place in the world and none could explain any difference between humans and the rest of animals, and Freud maybe just found an excuse to say this? I don't know a lot about psychoanalysis but I've always been kinda interested on it and this always got me concerned.
I would like to know what all of you think about this.
###This thread is in NO SALT mode!
Please be aware that rule 7 will be enforced more heavily in this thread and all disrespectful or derogatory comments in this thread will be immediately removed pending a report and moderator discretion.
Disrespect is defined as anything, intentional or unintentional, that appears to be meant to offend, shame, harass, or otherwise derogate another individual or group, within /r/zoophilia or without.
This does not include observations or fair criticisms whose verbiage is not inherently inflammatory and can be reasonably inferred or verified in some capacity. Potentially inflammatory opinions that are clarified as such and are in posts not intended to be inflammatory are not infractions. Our definition of disrespect is not meant to infringe upon freedom of speech, and if you think a post was wrongly marked for infraction, you are free to appeal it in a reply to a moderator's comment.
If you're unsure about whether your post has dangerously high sodium content, submit a modmail with a copy of your comment. We will tell you how to keep your comment heart healthy when needed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Sleep drunk, hope I somehow make sense.
I really can't decide if animals have attractions or not.
I don't even see that as the main problem with consent, I don't think it matters in this case.
Animals don't really care who or what helps them out with their sexual urges, so they'll allow sex to happen between themself and anyone else.
As long as that 'anyone' is trusted, capable, do it in a right manner, etc. of course.
But in the end, isn't there always a little 'instinct' involved in any sexual urges?
And that's why animals (and humans) usually have heterosexual sex because that's a 'main' part of that instinct.
And I remember you saying something about that they live differently and for that reason they usually act different sexually.
I think that might be true because certain things can change your sexual attractions. I have been told dog and horse attractions are more common because we grew up around them.
And not to mention the fact that some animals can lose parts of their instinct when domesticated.
There is always instinct, sure. But it can change like that.
I really doubt our pets are trying to survive for their lives in our homes...
Well, depends on what you mean by 'normal' person, but I'm pretty sure there's enough non-zoos out there who do this.
Funny, and kind of sad, is that I have been accused of this multiple times.
''You just pretend not to like humans and have sex with animals because you just can't get a human partner!'' or way more rude and less rational nonsense like that.
Freud was innovative for his time, but also a bit sloppy and often biased. Typical animals (including humans) do stuff that yields happy brain moments and avoid stuff that yields bad brain moments. Sex feels good, therefore animals do it. I'm certain it's as simple as that.
With instinct, I suspect that humans have about the same raw quantity of instinct as other animals, it's just that we also have 50,000 times more "other brain structure" to override or manipulate that instinct. Nevertheless people are still interested in fire. Young people especially seek or even construct caves (pillow forts, snow forts, tree houses, refrigerator boxes, etc.) and many are afraid of basements or heights, falling, spiders, etc. Nobody teaches them these things. If that's not instinct, I don't know what is.
Actually, humans have more instincts. The trend is that higher brain function lends itself to more instinct. Lots of common biases for instance... are kind of the product of instinct. One such instinctual bias that some people in this community are prone to are the in-group and out-group biases. Basically, the "we're better"and "They're evil" biases that lead to the false implication of 'us against them' and race superiority. Fear of spiders is actually learned, as is fear of snakes based on their peers' reaction or experience(think social learning). There are tribal societies that live on tarantulas among other things, and you see small children already hunting them without any trepidation, though. Even language learning and walking is instinctual. If you've ever found yourself monitoring some creep in a public place out of the corner of your eye, you've also been compelled by instinct. Eating disorders are instinctual too. Lots of human instinct end up causing harm now, though, and we end up labelling them bad habits instead of bad instincts.
Oh, and there's another fun one that I forgot to mention. There's an instinct behind redirected attacks -- taking your aggression out on things other than what you're angry at. That's why a dog will rip up their toys instead of ripping you up when you've genuinely upset them.
Okay, but anyway it's "not less/none" which is the point I was trying to make.
I'd be curious to hear what "more instincts" humans are proven to have, since the ones you mentioned are typical of all animals, but that's kind of secondary to my point.
Studying people who live on tarantulas doesn't really prove anything about a fear of spiders, except that people could overcome what may still be an instinctual aversion by social or biological pressure. But whatever, it's not the spiders sub. :)
Not every response is someone trying to disprove you. c;
Scattered, useless, and unstructured instincts mostly, but there are a metric ton that you can see in infants that are either more developed in human babies , or, you know, actually there. There's alot of overlap between human and primate babies, but the consensus is that humans still have lots of those instincts in some capacity as well as some neanderthal and proto-human instincts.
Simply an example from the top of my head. More empirically, a series of studies done by a certain Arne Öhman found that a fear of snakes and spiders(or perhaps animals in general -- the two didn't have any nonhuman animal control like puppies, just mushrooms and flowers) is not innate, but that there is a greater proclivity for the fear. It does have to be provoked, though. What was interesting was the similarity between the results for spiders and snakes. Snakes should elicit a longer fear response than spiders when taught to fear them considering the fact that they're practically harmless even on an evolutionary timescale, but they didn't. Humans can see snakes better than most mammals, but that's as far as the unique traits relating to snakes that we've got proof of goes. But yeah, this isn't a spider/snek sub.
Not every response, but often they are, when they quote someone's statement, followed by one's own paragraph beginning with the word "actually," then proceeding to describe a differing and possibly mutually exclusive opinion of the quoted subject matter.
Actually can also be used as an intensifier for the statement you're responding to. It's really versatile and I don't think the findings I was talking about were necessarily in conflict with the core idea of your opinion.
Although humans are animals too, I always cringe a little bit when someone fails to see the differences. Humans are the freaks of the animal kingdom insofar as that they don´t have what 99% of all other species have....mating season. Only a few other non human species like bonobos are really "like us", only a few other species use sex as "social glue" to forge social bonds and group stability...the majority of animals don´t. Our mating instincts are somewhat disconnected to actual procreation necessities and that might be the reason why humans have such things as sexual orientations. There´s not a single "gay" animal out there, for example. Animals fuck their siblings/infants without batting an eye, in animals , post coitus cannibalism can be found, animals don´t need fancy sex toys to enhance "the act".
Humans have replaced nature with culture and that is what Freud wanted to express. He also was right about "polymorph perversion" in humans, a theory that states humans basically can acquire almost any sexual "orientation" and will even invent new sexual deviations when "normal" stuff has lost its novelty charme. You won´t find such a thing as sadomasochism in animals, at least not in the same way humans use domination and submission as a sexual kink to enhance their experiences.
I´d strongly suggest that we discard this "humans are animals" fallacy. Denying all obvious differences only leaves a bad taste of fishing for justification. Humans aren´t animals anymore. Yes, there are many similarities with animals, but denying the huge differences that come with what we call culture, the different wiring humans have in their brains which cannot be found in any other species, is intentional blindness for reality.
I don't deny that there are big intellectual differences between the human and most other animals. As I said in my original post, I believe most of it happens because we live in a socio-culture, and I also said that I believe that's why sexual orientations are stronger in humans and maybe don't exist at all in animals, and I also totally agree with what Freud said about how orientation can end being literally anything because of its developement through years.
I agree with what you say, it's just that I don't see an instinct in humans or animals about reproduction, I only see a pulsion. Although I forgot about the mating seasons, like you said, and that might explain a lot. Maybe the instinct exists, but preferences or orientation don't come with it. From my perspective it seems to be like their pulse increases a lot during their mating season and they just look for the easiest and most convenient way to satisfy the urge, when in humans I would say this urge might exist at any time and it's very affected by their social culture. Do you agree with this?
Don't you think this is "intentional blindness for reality" given that all modern thought on the topic, including a wealth of empirical and anecdotal evidence, would dispute your quote? I'm pretty sure even creationists accept that humans are mammals.
Acknowledge the relevant differences, sure. That doesn't mean blind yourself to everything except the differences.
It also doesn´t mean to blind oneself for everything except the similarities because it fits into the own agenda/narrative. I do see both sides...but I have my doubts whether other zoos see them both.
I absolutely agree on both counts.
What's your definition of "gay"? Is it not the same as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
And apparently even necrophilia among ducks. Even opiliones (harvestmen/daddy long-legs) have been recorded having non-procreative sex.
How can you seriously say we're not animals? What possible reasoning can you have for making such an absurd statement. We have amazingly complex social structures and big, convoluted brains, but we're certainly animals.
I think he means gay as in orientation. Any animal can have homosexual behaviors but not exclusively and only homosexual behaviors as a personal preference and orientation of the animal, I think. I'm not very sure about it but that's what I usually see in animals. Like, we humans have orientations. I have a zoophile orientation, because I only find another species attractive and it's the only thing that excites me, and I wouldn't like to have sex with other thing when I feel excited, I would rather masturbate, because I have an orientation. Same goes for a heterosexual human or homosexual human or whatever. Animals on the other hand seem to be everything-sexual as long as they enjoy it or dont get hurt from it, they don't have strict preferences other than that, and I think that's what he means.
Don't get me wrong though, I agree with everything else you say in your post.
The wikipedia article cites two references for sheep having exclusive homosexual relationships.
There are several parthenogenic whiptail lizard species in which femals mount other females during "breeding".
Aren't all lizars of that species female tho? There was this lizard species that reproduced asexually and they mount eachother to estimulate the reproduction and maybe that's the one, idk
Sounds like the same ones; but that behavior would be homosexual, no? They can breed with other whiptails, just many of them don't.
Yeah I guess
Homosexual behaviour in animals =/= homosexuality in humans. Note the "behaviour" ? Why isn´t this article called homosexual/gay animals , then? "non procreative sex" is, btw, a HUMAN category. I doubt animals do it in the same mind as humans who have "non procreative sex"...see what I´m trying to get across? You really are convinced that HUMAN categories are applicable to animals with no adaptions, with no adjustment to their different brain structure and their lack of "culture"....
Humans are surely animals from a biological perspective...but since humans have developed "consciousness" and this voice insider their heads, I consider them mutated animals at best. Humans have been "upgraded" with another OP, operating system. Windows and Linux...both are "biologically" the same and share some similarities, but apart from that, they´re like two entirely different "universes"...
Hope that was kinda comprehensible...
There are numerous flaws in your argumentation, the most prominent of which is your assumption that culture or social learning do not exist in nonhuman animals. While your statement might be correct if we limit our perspective to horses and dogs, the research of leading primatologists such as Roger Fouts, Sue Savage-Rumbaugh or Jane Gooddall suggests that consciousness and culture are not uniquely human features. Unfortunately, I do not have the time and patience to perform thorough literature research on the matter in order to prove my point in a more scientifically accurate way. Perhaps AmoreBestia or Yearningmice have more sophisticated information at hand, which they might want to share with the community. (an EndNote or citavi library with relevant sources would be a great starting point, indeed) If you take interest in some further reading on the topic, I recommend DDr. Martin Balluch's PHD thesis titled "Die Kontinuität von Bewusstsein - Das naturwissenschaftliche Argument für Tierrechte", which was published in 2004.
With regards to your operating system metaphor, I do not believe that the comparison between Windows and Linux is appropriate in this case, as both have similar features and a similar range of application. You, in turn, assume that an animal's mind is per se limited in its intellectual capacity, meaning that a printer firmware and a modern day computer OS would be a more suitable analogy for what you imply with your statement. To get to the point, I'd like you to acknowledge that while humans might be the most intelligent species on this planet, this mental superiority does not set them apart from all other animals. Indeed, the evidence that Homo sapiens might be referred to as "princeps inter pares" rather than as an entirely different category, is overwhelming. Take, for instance, the MSR test for self awareness, which several species are capable of passing or the well-documented use of tools in nonhuman animals. Even the theory that language is found exclusively in humans has been refuted so far. Savage-Rumbaugh's research on the acquisition and use of language in chimpanzees indicates that these animals are indeed capable of forming meaningful English sentences, which are not based on imitative behavior. In reply to your assertion that non-procreative sex is an human category which does not apply to animals, I'd like to cite a study investigating the behavior of a group of Bonobos, which concluded that 75% of all sexual contacts recorded within a given period of time were either homosexual or happened outside mating season. Thus, I just don't see why you are so determined in your effort to enforce this dichotomy between humans and animals.
I think that this series on Gombe by National Geographic is a bit more accessible than scientific literature. The reason why culture was once considered exclusive to humans is that it was considered a destination, so to speak. Either you could take up a society's culture, or you couldn't. Now, it's defined more as a process and while many nonhuman animals tend to be slow on the uptake(in human societies), social animals are able to adopt cultural norms. Cultural research outside of birds, cetaceans, and primates is sparse, but the general consensus is that most vertebrates and even insects like ants possess some capacity for culture.
And I second pretty much everything you just said here.
I have to work on Saturdays so I'm going to keep my comment short. Perhaps I can find the time to go into detail this evening. First, could you please further expand on your assertion that there is such thing as a "humans are animals fallacy". Judging by the considerable number of academic publications, which indicate, that the difference between humans and animals is one of degree and not of kind, your statement seems at least questionable to me or would at least require additional clarification. Next, trying to back your argumentation with Sigmund Freud's theories is like citing Newton in a discussion on quantum physics. While Freud might have been ahead of his time a century ago, his ideas are highly outdated now given the tremendous progress that science has made during the last 100 years. Indeed, as AmoreBestia has stated in another comment below, "psychoanalysis....is largely considered a pseudoscience in the science community and shouldn't be the basis for any causal determinations". Thus, I'd like to encourage you to acknowledge recent advances in psychology, biology, behavioral science, genetics and neuroscience and critically reflect on Freud's theses instead of merely adopting them.
Well, it´s 8´o clock in the morning, I haven´t slept, my dick hurts (+hurrhurr+) and I´m hammered like friggin´ hell...I´ll try to explain it better when I´m sobered out again...;)
As somebody who doesn't drink alcohol, doesn't take drugs, doesn't smoke and hasn't had sex in the last few years, I have to admit that I can hardly imagine how you might feel.
As far as this goes, I think that your conclusions are mostly sound, but Freud's theories are largely speculations and have been shown to be incorrect in many ways. So it may be best to explain this in more modern terms and see where we agree.
Edited for accidental post.
As I understand it, sexual desire in mammals is largely similar in its functioning, from the adrenaline rush of first attraction to the dopamine of continued pleasurable contact to the oxytocin of long term social bonding. Basically, we're all pleasure-driven creatures with certain instincts driving us toward certain stimuli.
Human have learned to rationalize these things, but are ultimately driven by the same instincts. Society is built up around these passions, and certain ones are emphasized over others in healthy societies. I think that heteronormativity is partly due a default instinctive mating drive and partly due to social pressures to maintain society, including producing children.
Zoophiles, it seems to me, either reject this notion that they must be as society expects them or are driven by unusual passions, relating to different priorities between humans, animals, pleasure, and "higher" goals like social standing. Some may be contrarian, some may be misanthropic, but they are seeking to maximize their happiness and that of others like anyone else. They just have different ideas about the best way to achieve that goal.
I have some relatives that studied psychoanalysis and say the same thing about this specific topic tbh.
Psychoanalysis, despite its influence, is largely considered a pseudoscience in the science community and shouldn't be the basis for any causal determinations.
I can safely say that some go down a self destructive path for the sole purpose of seeing a goal through that they know won't make anyone happier... but that's not terribly relevant to the topic at hand.
A lot of what I thought when I read your post has been said. I'd just like to say that Freud is not really a valid source of anything although I am reading he is coming back into fashion somewhat without his biased conclusions. Our understanding of both humans, animals, instincts and the human brain have changed so, like /u/AmoreBestia said, kinda pseudosciencey.
On the how animals feel front, in the last decade or some of the leading animal behaviour people are starting to say things like "the last thirty years of going out of our way to ensure we don't anthropomorphize animals has set the science back 50 years on the subject of animal behaviour and emotion."
It's funny, one of the groups of people I do stuff with put an emphasis on scholarly research. The problem is they tend to be old farts who got all scolarly in the 60s and 70s. So they refer to books from that era as authoritative. One argument I had was "tool X was never used by people Y" Of course, in the last 10 years there has been several examples of tool X in the context of people Y. I showed this peer-reviewed information to the folks in question, which included pictures of the tool. Did change anyone's mind. My point being that there is a lot of great info in older theories and to understand what we have now we often need to understand what came before. Just don't get locked into a way of belief that freezes out new information.
Interesting post, I hope it generates useful discussion.
Freud was probably speciesist (that is, arbitrarily separating humans from other species and assigning them different values). You are correct that non-human animals have homosexual sex and interspecies sex in the same way that humans do. The idea that interspecies sex (when a human does it) is "wrong" is an artificial construct made by a society with bad "moral values".
Remember, humans are animals.