This is subject that is never really discussed, and that worries me.
I've seen threads about how certain individuals use things like peanutbutter / any condiment to get animals to lick their genitals.
Sure, that's nothing new. But whenever it's mentioned I always see similar responses, and this is pretty it in a nutshell: ''You aren't a real zoo if you need to use peanutbutter, you don't even need it.''
Even though it's not the real point of this thread, can someone answer me what these ''real zoos'' know? How do you do it, then?
And no, I'm not asking this so I can get my dog to lick me off, because I'm leaning towards the fact that it may be unethical and do not wish to do it ever again unless I'm convinced that it is right. I'm just curious what the real answer is, because from what I've seen most zoophiles seem to have trained their animals, which confuses me because I thought we were against doing such a thing. Some even said they straight up give them oral like a human would and I find that extremely hard to believe, especially if they say they it's not trained behavior.
Back to the real point of the thread, is it wrong to let animals perform oral on you?
I've never seen animals giving eachother oral or heard of such a thing, other than that males may lick a female in heat. But never have I seen an animal really suck a dick of their own species.
I feel very bad about it, but also I let my bitch perform oral (without peanutbutter) on me before. What I noticed is that she licks specific parts and doesn't lick them again until next time, as if the taste was gone, kind of like how humans spit out bubblegum when the taste is gone. Trigger warning, sounds disgusting: After I urinated she really seemed to be more interested in my dick, too. This means they only do it because of the taste. It never lasted long either, most of the time she only did this for a few seconds and that's it.
Back to the whole peanutbutter thing for a sec, if animals were really that interested, why would humans use things like peanutbutter so much? You'd think animals would do it themselves if they knew what they were doing or if it was so obvious.
When you have sex with animals, they don't know that you are enjoying it. Even if they did, it doesn't change the fact that they only have sex only for themselves and don't do it to pleasure you. They do it for their own sexual urges, not yours.
That makes me think: They don't even gain any sexual pleasure in doing performing oral.
I'm pretty sure they are not aware of what things like penises are either. To them, it's just another body part and you're tricking them into doing this.
So to me, they don't understand the situation and it might be rape but it sure is exploitation. Thoughts?
Some animals like to lick human genitalia completely by their own free will, no peanut butter involved. The reasons? Well, I guess they like the scent or taste of it, and start doing it because of curiousity. Male dogs do lick female dogs in heat, you know, although not for long periods of time. It seems they taste the female in order to get more information about her willingness to mate or something like that.
An ex-boyfriend told me once that a female dog he dog-sat tried to lick at his penis once when he came out of the shower. He covered himself with a towel and shoo'd her away, but what if he hadn't done that? Had she continued?
Male dogs seem especially interested in the smell of human female period blood. My mother, who doesn't like dogs, had once met a neighbor and his male dog. The dog had tried to constantly push his nose towards my mothers crotch, to my mother's dismay. The neighbor laughed and asked "are you on your period? He seems to always go to women during that time of the month". It was true, and my mother was so embarrassed and enraged by the neighbor's tendency to joke about such a thing!
So no, it's not wrong to let an animal give you oral if they start doing it by themselves, without any bribery or training.
Yeah, that's what I also said. I even said I experienced such things myself.
But how does this prove they understand the situation or that they sexually like it?
I suggest reading my whole post again...
It makes sense because dogs can easily smell such a thing and they also seem to lick up blood.
And this is mainly about male genitalia, too.
I do think an animal (at least a mammal) knows what a penis is. After all, other mammals have penises too. And regardless of whether they do it because the dick tastes good or because they get horny, or whatever, does it really matter? It's kind of like when a dog chases a ball - does it matter if they know what a 'ball' is, or what 'sports' are, or is the important part that they are having fun and enjoying themselves?
And oral sex does exist in the animal kingdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#Oral_sex
But if they are just out to get peanut butter, just give them a spoonful without tricking them!
That's not how it works. Just because they have something doesn't mean they understand what it really is.
They mostly listen to their own instincts, that doesn't mean they know what that dangling thing is.
What the f... Are you serious?
With the same logic you use: If animals did not understand what sex was, it'd still be right if we had sex with them.
This is why zoophilia and bestiality are seen as unethical, if you didn't know. So yes, it IS very wrong.
There's something I needed.
I've read some citations and I'm still not convinced.
It is suggested that such behavior comes from when they were young, so that even makes it more wrong.
''Brown bear cubs suckle their mother for milk, bonding, and comfort ... Orphaned bear cubs may suck their own or their sibling’s body parts, such as paws or ears, as a substitute for their mother’s nipples. In the case reported here, the provider may have found a substitute for teat‐sucking that also resulted in a let‐down of substitute “milk.”''
As for the wolves,
Their behavior was also learned when they were young since mothers tend to clean their young one's genitals. Seems like the young ones stuck to the behavior.
There was also a case where a female seemed to lick a male's shaft for about 40 seconds. The male came back a few times, but the female declined.
Yeah I knew they liked getting their genitals licked, but it's just not the other way around. Not in the way they understand, at least.
It doesn't really prove anything, nor does this prove that animals like dogs or horses would understand.
I mean, they probably don't understand sex as humans understand it and the meanings humans have attached to it. They understand the act, how to do it, and that it feels good and (because dogs are empathetic animals) it makes the person happy. They don't know the social implications and it seems unlikely to me they know that it leads to reproduction.
That's understandably a problem for some people, and personally I think this is something two reasonable people could disagree on. To me though, if the animal seeks it out and derives pleasure from it, it doesn't matter that they're not thinking about it the same as a human would. There's likely nothing that they perceive the exact same way as humans including games and training.
This difference in perception and understanding doesn't seem to affect most peoples' opinion of other activities we do with animals. Most games and sports are just redirection of hunting and flight instincts combined with operant conditioning of new behaviors. There's no knowledge on the animal's end of 'winning' or what a frisbee really is, just a drive to catch things moving fast and to seek positive reactions from the human.
Aside from human social and religious meaning to sex, what really makes it different from other interactions?
That's right.
No they do not know that. I have yet to see evidence for this.
They have no way of knowing this and even if they did, I find it extremely hard to believe because sex is something quite intense. They wouldn't think about helping you with your sexual urges when they're focusing on the act and currently enjoying it.
Duh, animals never look at it the exact same way as us.
But it is a problem if they don't understand what they are doing. You are using an animal for your own sexual gratification, so you are exploiting them.
That sex is something natural and you only understand it when you are sexually mature.
Also, both need to be able to enjoy it in a similar way and that's if they both consent and if they both sexually enjoy it.
Dogs' reactions to human emotional expressions is fairly well studied. The studies suggest they are able to perceive, interpret, and respond appropriately to human emotional cues like facial expressions, body language, and crying. There's also anecdotal evidence of behavior being positively reinforced by happy reactions, both intentionally (I know of dogs trained by praise alone) and accidentally (an odd behavior gets a laugh and the dog repeats it).
That's the thing though, they never have the same understanding. Some people find it unacceptable to have any kind of sex with animals because they don't understand the social meanings humans attach to the act. Some people find having pets at all unacceptable because the animals don't understand what that really means.
As far as oral sex goes I'm skeptical that they'd really have no understanding of it being sexual. If dogs were ignorant of what and where genitals are they wouldn't treat genitalia different than other body parts, but they do. In dogs genital licking is a part of their normal mating behavior. From the reactions (partially extending the penis, air humping, etc) I've seen in males sniffing and licking, even without it leading to mounting, there seems to be a reaction to the hormones and sexual juices present on genitalia.
I agree that if the animal is getting nothing out of it or if coercion is needed then it shouldn't be done, but personally I'm skeptical of how much the specific reinforcement (sexual vs taste) they get out of it matters. If dogs like the taste (which they certainly appear to) and like it enough to insist upon licking without being coerced into it (which they also do) and seeks it out without prompting or conditioning (this is again something that they do) what does it matter that it makes the human aroused?
And how would a dog know that you are enjoying sex?
What sound, behavior or anything like that makes them aware you are enjoying it?
You also have to realize that not every human reacts the same way to sex.
I also doubt that a male dog would actually stop when the human shows clear signs of wanting to stop. I'm not the one who exactly gets off to male dog on female human, but I've watched it before and saw a video where the female human clearly didn't like it. But this also woke me up how some males even straight up rape females, which to me already proves enough they're not aware of it. Makes sense, they seem to be really focused on sex when they have sex.
None of this even proves they know that licking our dicks will result in our sexual pleasure.
At least my dog knows no such thing. She has been very forceful in the past even though I clearly showed that I was not in the mood. So much that I had to throw her off me and shout at her.
When I performed oral once she put both her paws on my head, pushing my head into her vagina and started humping. How would she know when I wanted to stop?
For humans they certainly don't. Put any kind of liquid from your genitals anywhere on your body and they'll lick it. It definitely is the taste.
And yes, dogs do also lick other parts of our bodies as if they were genitals.
Reaction? What?
They lick it because it tastes good to them.
I have just as much a problem with that as anyone letting their animal lick their genitals. So I won't treat the ones that do any different.
Because it's exploitation. It's taking an unfair advantage of an animal.
Good luck convincing others love is involved in this if you think it doesn't matter, because that is not real love.
Real love is keeping it equal for the both of you.
But with the same logic, if animals could not consent it'd be right to have sex with them anyways? Because they'd still enjoy it, they just don't know what they're doing.
Same way as for other actions- smiling, increased petting/other physical affection, happy vocal tones, even chemical and hormonal cues. Not everyone will have the same displays, but that's true of other emotional cues as well. There's likely never going to be research on if dogs can percieve human sexual cues, but I see no reason to think that it would be different from other base emotions like happiness, anger, or fear.
Them being able to perceive emotional cues doesn't mean they'll necessarily act on them, especially not if there's something that's a stronger reinforcer or if they're totally focused on a task. A dog might not stop chasing a squirrel when you are angry. A dog might also refuse to do something scary even if you show happiness.
Aside from just sex, there are sometimes other reinforcers going on in situations like porn and breeding. Food, toy, and social rewards for completing the act, aversives if they fail. They also don't necessarily experience any consequences from raping, be that stopping sex or applying pain.
Basically there's more going on than just reacting to human emotion.
There's signs of arousal that can be observed during licking. Be it from the action or the chemicals present, licking genitalia appears to be at least somewhat arousing.
I'm skeptical that anything can be equal due to the differences in perception. Pretty much everything we enjoy doing with dogs is experienced extremely differently on their end. Even if I play a game of tug, the way we interpret it is completely different. The dog really, really wants his toy and gets something out of satisfying his drive to 'fight'. I get a tired out dog and find the game funny. In the end though, everyone's happy so does the 'why' really matter? Why should it matter in sexual interactions?
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about using force or coercion?
Again, many people already argue animals can't consent to sex because they can't consent to the social implications of sex. I've also seen (and used myself, once upon a time) the same argument that since we don't know if they know they're getting humans off through sex, they're not consenting. I find it inconsistent to say that this is fine if they're getting sexual pleasure out of it but not fine if sexual pleasure isn't present.
In most human-animal interactions there is a degree of cherry-picking what consent means for animals. This generally means 'participating', though a growing number (myself included) use 'participating without coercion and with the ability to reject it'. For sexual interactions some people add 'with knowledge of social implications and all potential risks', which works fine applied to humans, but animals don't understand the nuances of our society and risks can't be effectively communicated.
So how does a dog see your smile when they're on top of you or when you're on top of them?
But that's not how it works. Just because you're smiling they immediately realize you think it's fun.
Animals are direct, but they aren't direct like that.
And all of that during sex? Yes, seems logical. Let me just randomly pet you while we're having sex.
Also, this is really wrong. You are training an animal to have sex because you encourage them by treating them.
I do.
When they have sex, they are focused on it. They won't realize you think it's fun.
They won't pay attention to you in any way, they are currently getting their rocks off. Sorry bud.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah. Of cooourse.
See guys, this is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for logic, not something like this.
I think we both know this makes no sense.
Ey, there you go.
Took you long enough.
That's right, mainly because they are distracted. So they can not read what you mean.
And we all know that such a thing is extremely wrong. They are not truly consenting to the act.
Not to mention they STILL do it for themselves, because they want that treat. They don't eat that treat for you now, do they?
Yeah they do.
If you don't think an animal will stray away from sex or be afraid when they're raped then you're missing something.
I'd like to see that, then.
Because with games of tug and things like that you both enjoy it the same way. You both understand what you are doing, playing a game together and just pulling. It's damn simple.
Also, I hope I don't have to explain why this isn't real love. If you really love your animal, you want them to enjoy it as much as they can, and oral isn't one of these things. That's only a thing you sexually enjoy.
I said if they couldn't consent. So they have no way of showing they want sex and that they don't understand what sex is.
This is why I mentioned other things. Also necks exist and they can turn.
Why wouldn't you pet them? :B And I hate to break it to you but just about everything you do is reinforcing in some way. You say "what?" when the dog is looking at you? That's a reward. You take a toy away if the dog nips during tug? That's negative reinforcement. Even eye contact creates something called the oxytocin loop in dogs. They pay a lot of attention to humans in a way that is similar to what's seen in children.
It could even be argued that sex itself is a reward. It's certainly known to be pleasurable and something they'll seek out.
Even if you assume they are 100% focused on sex while they're doing it, vigorous focused humping isn't the only part of it. There's the buildup where they'll be receiving feedback from you and afterwards where they'll see your response.
I'm not talking about animals being raped. I'm responding to YOU bringing up animals either being directed to rape women or raping female animals. You're missing your reading comprehension.
I don't think this is true. The dog DOESN'T understand what my motivations are, as far as he's concerned I want the dog toy just as much as he does. I also don't have the same kind of prey and fight itches that, for dogs, tug scratches. Sometimes I play tug with ulterior motives like tiring out a hyperactive dog or using it as a reward.
If they're seeking it out on their own without coercion, especially if they're insistent upon it, why should I believe that what they're getting out of it isn't highly positive for them? They enjoy it for some reason enough to seek it out, why does it matter if it's not for the same reasons that I enjoy it?
Here's another question. Say someone DOESN'T enjoy receiving oral stimulation (not everyone is sensitive enough for this) but allows their animal to lick them anyway, is this wrong too?
And I've never seen them do it during sex.
Because your current hands are being used to have sex? And also because you're focusing on sex and not randomly petting them?
What, you pet your animals when you walk outside every time or what?
How is that a reward? The fuck, man? Seriously, now you're acting crazy.
What, now that my dog winks both of her eyes it's also a reward? Or what, is that a punishment?
But it's not a reward like giving a treat or anything. This won't ''train'' them but it will certainly make them go back because they actually enjoy it.
It's not just the humping, it's that they're enjoying it.
Look at their reactions, look at how they look. They don't know that you're enjoying it in any way.
If they really do, explain to me why females / males try to leave when they came.
...And I still don't get your point.
There's always consequences to rape.
Well that's you, then.
Whatever it is, I'm not exploiting her in any way because I know she enjoys it. She even ejoys it more than me because I don't find much enjoyment in doing it. I mean, I do it for her, I guess...
Because you enjoy it way more than them. Again, if it was real love you'd want to equally enjoy it.
Duh, they still don't understand the situation. It's still exploitation.
And of course it's wrong, that's raping yourself. You've really got to hate yourself if you harm yourself that way, and it's not really mentally healthy.
Yes? Of course I do? Why wouldn't I?
Okay, let's start by defining 'reward'. I'm using it in the sense of 'any reinforcer that, when applied, increases the frequency of a behavior'. Personally I don't think this needs to be intentionally applied, but some might disagree with that.
Saying "what?" to a dog staring at you can be rewarding to a dog because it's receiving attention, probably positive attention. This is a good thing to a dog, so it's going to reinforce the behavior of staring and the dog will be more likely to stare in the future.
Receiving pleasure from sex can definitely be considered a reward. It feels good, the animal likes it, and, as you yourself pointed out, it makes the animal more likely to do it in the future.
Say there's a bitch in heat who isn't receptive to a particular dog. Left to their own devices, she might deny him pleasure by not allowing him to mount or cause him pain by biting. If a person is breeding these dogs, this isn't ideal, so the person holds the bitch in place. The male dog in this situation has not received any negative consequences to raping, if anything, the behavior has been reinforced and he's likely to do it again. For the bitch, yes, this is an awful experience, but that's likely not going to be negative enough to the male to be a punishment.
How do you know that?
And I think it's safe to say we're done here.
Dogs were specifically bred to be in tune with human emotions, and humping for them is a reflex that they don't always have control over.
I'll get into this elsewhere, but since it's relevant here: Can you define "unfair"?
Dogs sniff each other's butts too, that doesn't mean it's erotic to them, it just means they are interested in the smell.
I'll stick other thoughts in a separate response.
I'm aware of that. I've seen though videos of dogs sniffing and licking animals and humans where the male dogs get visibly aroused though it doesn't lead to mounting. This is what I was referring to.
Indeed, I think the same could often be said of many typical heterosexual human sexual encounters. They may logically understand how reproduction works, but when they're making accidental babies it isn't because they've thought about but because they, just like a dog, are doing it out of "instinct" because "it feels good".
Just a minor point to add...
I've known more than a few males who would happily lick a bitch, in or out or heat, for as long as she would allow it - and known some bitches who would allow it for quite some time, a few of which I have seen start humping the air from the stimulation.
My dogs will lick all over my rear and genitals before and after they mount. Gotta save that protein I guess lol.
My dogs are happy to let me lay down and let them lick wherever they please. Do they derive sexual pleasure from it? No, not unless they're licking in preparation to mount. But do they enjoy it? Sure, be it for the taste or for expressing a level of affection with me I can't say(tho probably bit of a and b).
The use of enticement like peanut butter is pretty lazy but granted they're your dog and you have an otherwise healthy relationship with them I wouldn't say it's abusive or rape. There's much more enriching ways to have fun tho.
I'm not trying to sound rude, but how does this prove that they know what they're doing?
What do you mean "know what they're doing"?
Exactly how I say it.
They don't understand it is a sexual act or what they are truly doing.
Ok it just came off as pretty broad. So you're saying perhaps when my dog licks me in preparation to mount and tie he is unaware of what he is engaging in? And similarly with him cleaning up afterwards? Both are standard procedures for dogs really, be it with a human partner or with another dog.
What do you mean to say when saying they don't understand it is a "sexual act?" I mean sure, dogs don't have the same acknowledgement and understanding of sexual relations as we treat it because they don't really care(social construct), but he's aware that he's licking my sensitive bits in preparation to have sex, and that he's cleaning me up because, again, we had sex.
So what are they doing that they don't understand? What is the net effect of my dog licking me and having sex with me? He has a good time and gets to lick tasty things, and I have a good time and then what? Maybe make some dinner, watch a movie, go for an evening walk? What part did they miss?
It's normal for a male dog to perform oral on a bitch in heat yes.
It's not normal for a male dog to perform oral on a male nor do they understand it.
The thing is that this is like statutory rape. They are not aware of the fact that what they are doing is meant to be sexual and don't gain any sexual pleasure from it.
This is animal exploitation as you are using an animal to sexually please you.
Lol no, it's not. My dog fully understands that he is licking in preparation to mount. They don't lick for the others' pleasure, they lick so that there is more moisture to ensure they can fit in smoothly. I'm not exploiting my animals at all, but giving them an outlet for their own desires as well. It's something we do together and something I often don't even orgasm from lol. You're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on poorly formed assumptions. Statutory rape doesn't even apply because that's a legal definition for a human being.
Licking your dick has nothing to do with the preparation to mount, only when he licks your ass.
What you said is the reason they lick vaginas / asses, not dicks.
And I didn't know what else to call it other than statutory rape. You know exactly what I mean, it's the rape that occurs when one does not understand the situation and is being exploited.
My dog also licks my dick after, not only due to cum running down onto it but also in anticipation of my orgasm. So again, him cleaning up and again, what does he not understand? How is he being exploited at all in a situation he fully put himself into and participated in, to get his own positive return? You keep throwing around exploited and "doesn't understand" as if saying that itself is enough to prove it but given the situation laid out for you I'm not at all seeing where your claims are coming from lol. Could a dog licking someone's genitals be exploitation? Sure, but definitely not every situation as you seem to be prescribing.
He doesn't understand it's a sexual act. He solely does it because of the taste.
So it's right to have sex with underage creatures if they chose to participate in the act, even if they don't know the situation?
Then you might want to learn to read.
If there's no evidence they understand, then they don't.
Ok so maybe you missed the point which I made. And then you were condescending so I'm kinda growing tired of this exchange lol. The idea of an act of sex being some extra special thing is 100% a social construct. One that doesn't exist for dogs, and one that doesn't exist for people unless it's a belief the decide to prescribe to. There's no special thing my dog needs to understand or that he doesn't understand exists in the real, logistical world. The idea that he needs to understand something more is silly given our situation.
That's because sex is a special thing. Both for humans AND animals.
This isn't just any normal kind of activity, this is something that every creature realizes when we grow older.
Having sex can have effects on both humans and animals, either bad or good.
If you think sex is special only because of social construct, you have a lot to learn, and now you made me very concerned about any animal you will end up having sex with.
Well anyways, with your logic:
I mean, it's all special only because of social construct right?
''Zoophilia is love.'' Yep, that's why I use my dog for my own sexual urges, even though they don't enjoy it in a sexual way.
Just because it's possible to misconstrue what I'm saying given my situation doesn't mean that's reality. I would never say it is right to exploit animals, hence why I am vegan.
Sex being special is a social construct, but having a strong emotional connection with another person or animal isn't fake. That's why someone who doesn't have sex with their pet can be just as in love with them as someone who does. That bond doesnt form around sex, not for animals and not necessarily for humans. Dogs aren't monogamous and neither are a lot of people. My dogs will mount or try and solicit sex from other people but it doesn't at all approach that close bond of trust and love we have.
Sex with my dog is great and special, but not because sex is special. It's because I'm spending time with my dog doing something we both enjoy.
I don't claim me being zoo gives me some special better-than-not connection with my pets because it doesn't. I love my dogs just as much as any guy who is crazy about their dogs, I just also let em have sex with me because I know it's fun and I know they enjoy it, and I like letting them do things they enjoy.
If "all animals realize sex is special when they grow older" I'd love for you to explain your opinion on it.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I said it is special BECAUSE they only realize it when they're older.
Not only that.
It's a thing that you cannot learn, it's a thing you realize. You develop when you mature.
It's not just a fun activity, because the urge for it is very different from the urge to play a game, for example.
Hm. As someone who has watched young wild animals grow up this isn't a great argument. Young animals, before reaching sexual maturity, mount and hump each other in play frequently. While this is play not to be confused with actual sex, it does show both that they innately know these behaviors and also practice them. Also this doesn't make it okay to have sex with baby animals, they aren't physically developed to be able to handle the actual act regardless of what they pretend in play.
It also isn't unique in being a behavior that changes and develops with maturity. Hunting is also like this. Young animals will display and practice hunting behavior in play, but this doesn't mean they'll know to chase and kill their prey until they get older and more experienced. Flight and fear behavior also doesn't seem to be innate in young animals as they'll boldly approach new things while many adult animals are neophobic.
So do non-sexually mature humans.
This does not mean they understand it fully. They can only truly consent when they are truly sexually mature.
Otherwise it's statutory rape. Attraction, awareness of sex, etc. is developed when you are sexually mature.
They perform these acts because that's because they're developing and it doesn't mean it's right at all.
Some would be big enough.
So that really depends.
I guess that's right, but that doesn't change anything for me.
Everything you mentioned? Instinct.
Sexual urges are also just instincts, and for it to be consensual both individuals need to be able to understand it.
You accuse WarCanine of jumping to conclusions, but that´s what you did with your "they lick so that there is more moisture to ensure they can fit in" statement too. What may apply to you isn´t what usually happens in mating...I´ve never seen a female that needed extra moisturisation; when they´re in heat, they produce more than enough natural lubricants themselves.No attack, I´m just sayin´.
From what I know, the enthusiastic licking of dogs mainly occurs because of the salt that´s in your sweat and they don´t care whether it´s the sweat from your arm, your face, your dick or your butthole. So, WarCanine is somehow right with what he´s saying, it´s not a part of anything sexual. I wouldn´t call it statutory rape, but your practice surely can be interpreted as training your animal. Whenever you "guide" them from an asexual behaviour to a sexual one, with the asexual behaviour intended as a trigger for sex, you can call it a learned behaviour a.k.a. training. Not exactly what I consider to be natural sexual behaviour , especially outside of the natural heat cycle and without any natural pheromones of a bitch included. "Giving them an outlet for their own desires"...is just another "zoo" propaganda thing. Almost all male (female too, btw) animals know how to masturbate. Dogs, Horses, bovines, sheep, cats, you name it, they all know an "outlet" for their "desires" and do not need you in any way for this. You´re not their "saviour", not the generous knight in shiny armor to bring these "poor" animals sexual relief you want to portray yourself as. So much for baseless "ass"umptions....;)
A individual opposed to zoophilia as a whole could easily say that you´re just taking advantage of your male dog´s natural humping reflex and as far as I am concerned, I don´t see any logical flaw in this argument. Now just add the "24/7 ready for it mentality" of any male animal and your relationship to your dog could turn out as not so meaningful as you may believe. Hell, dogs hump basically anything, pillows, other animals of either gender, I´ve even seen a vid of a dog humping a chicken, legs, ...well, basically anything. BTW, that´s the main reason why I have my problems with accepting this entire " passive gay zoo" stuff...males aren´t picky and they give a flying fuck (pun intended) whose arsehole they penetrate. They surely don´t identify themselves as "homosexuals", maybe they even don´t get the difference between a vagina and a butthole...if it´s possible, they pound away. Most mammal females are kinda picky, more or less, depending on their species´ natural mating habits. I´ve seen mares refuse a stallion they don´t liked, but I´ve never seen a stallion rejecting mating. Especially when it comes to the grey area of "love or instrumentalising the animal", I think that hetero zoos have a slight advantage regarding development of an actual relationship...but that´s just me, thinking about this whole stuff for waaaay too long now...
So much garbage not even worth replying to lol. All you do every time is make your own points and work off of those lol. I never called myself a savior to my dog or alluded anything of the sort. Simply that I provide an outlet. A potential outlet. One he uses often.
Oh, should I make YOUR points instead so you feel assured? Isn´t the whole idea of forums like this dissent and discussions? I´ve put an extra effort in my reply so it doesn´t come across as belittling or berating, guess I can spare this effort next time because you turn on your anger engine when you only read my name...and I hope you were in school, weren´t you? Haven´t they taught you about hyperbole and exaggeration? Not to mention that your argumentation actually supports the notion you are considering yourself as some sort of saviour for your animal(s)...but nevermind. I gave up hope for intelligent discussions in here long ago, with some exceptions...btw, your bitching style can also be considered as a lack of debunk arguments...I´d rather have preferred it if you had presented some counterarguments.
I meant making your own points and replying to those as if they were something I said. Hence why I called you out for saying I'm like a "savior" to my dogs. Forums and sharing opinions and point of views is great but you have shown to many that discourse with you is rarely worthwhile.
You have my deepest sympathies.
Wanna bet.
Sounds like a serious lack of relationship to me.
One of the absolute most important concepts that you will ever teach any youngster of any species is reciprocity. How else do you handle an animal capable of killing you with one blow?
I practice it with my guy (15 HH Paint stud). He knows full well how much stress sex with him puts on me. Just like he knows when I'm sexually excited and when I orgasm. He can smell, hear, and feel my responses in detail and uses them as he would use the same info from another horse. This is the language of animals and available to any human that takes the time to learn it.
Once you have communication, exchanges become possible. He likes for me to ride him because I extend his senses and knowledge making both of us safer and happier. I keep him well fed and parasite free because I like the loan of his speed and strength. And when we have sex he is going to have enough orgasm to insure reproduction (if only) but he works at playing me because the intensity and length of his orgasms is linked to mine. In other words, we are just like any other committed couple.
He must know what a penis is because he will nibble mine as foreplay.
It does matter that he was imprinted as a colt. Most animals are capable of learning some human language and mannerisms in that situation. Surely you have met at least one dog that thought he was human?
If you don't have this level of communication there may be some rape going on though I am not all that certain that the human is always the rapist. As far as exploitation goes, of course we do. That is how relationship works. What matters is that the extent of the exploitation is roughly equal.
So why would it be wrong if he chose to give me blow jobs in return for something that he wanted?
[deleted]
So, as I understand your position, anyone who thinks they can communicate with an animal is delusional. Anyone who thinks they have a relationship with an animal is "overanthropomorphising". And having a mutually beneficial exchange with an animal is morally wrong.
That is truly sad. You will not even permit yourself to imagine joy and richness standing right in front of you.
My sympathy is deepening.
No? Stop assuming shit like this.
This is delusional.
'' Surely you have met at least one dog that thought he was human?''
''So why would it be wrong if he chose to give me blow jobs in return for something that he wanted?''
These are the dumbest things I have heard in my life and do not understand how someone like you can even understand it yourself.
I only call it delusional / overanthropomorphising when you think the animal loves you the same way, as in romantic.
Yes, exploiting animals used to be wrong, but I changed now.
It's alright since I do it myself since today.
And I have no idea what you are talking about...
I choose horses for my example for a reason. They are more social and more communicative than humans. You don't "speak the language" so you see a bunch of animals just standing around in a field. Actually, there is a continuous stream of communication going on between the horses. They are co-ordinating activities so someone is always "on watch" and no one ever gets separated from the group. Resources (choice food etc) are allocated and obstacles avoided.
My participation is limited by my humanity (I don't have 320 degree vision or dual directional hearing) but I'm not blind and deaf. I am trusted enough for watch standing and problem solving. That means that we have enough communication co-ordinate both routine and emergency action. They accept my evaluation of strange events like a low flying helicopter and react as I dictate. Experience has taught them that my vision is superior (color and depth perception) and my understanding greater so they rely on me and seek my counsel.
They also know that hands can do marvelous things from bringing food in the depths of winter to scratching impossible itches. Have you ever heard of "social grooming"? We do that. Now, how do I know where to scratch them and how do they know how to scratch me without ripping skin off? For that matter how does my half ton stallion know how to hold me without crushing me?
So there must be a lot of commonality and two way communication here. Just stand back and watch the boss mare discipline a youngster for threatening a human visitor. "Teaching", "training", or "relating" it's all just semantics. We do it among ourselves and they do it among themselves. So where is the barrier to doing it to each other?
That is why I pity those who refuse to see. There is a rich world populated by interesting individuals out there inches from your nose. Open yourself to the possibilities or be your own personal tormentor.
You still haven't explained shit.
Explain this: ''Surely you have met at least one dog that thought he was human?''
This makes no sense.
Explain this: ''So why would it be wrong if he chose to give me blow jobs in return for something that he wanted?''
A horse can't know that he'd get a reward after. If so, you are training an animal for your own sexual gratification, which is wrong.
Explain this: ''You will not even permit yourself to imagine joy and richness standing right in front of you.''
I don't understand this shit.
I'll take a quick look if you reply, and if it's the same random irrelevant BS then I'm just going to ignore you.
Talk about these or don't talk at all.
That's a spectacularly obvious way of mentioning that an animal separated from its own species too young and raised by humans will attempt to function purely as a human. Birds are also famous for this to the point that movies have been made of humans teaching birds to fly.
How is this not self-explanatory? As I explained at great length, this is the nature of our relationship. I do things for him and he does things for me and we do things together that we both like. That's how relationships (at least healthy ones) work. There is give and take in roughly equal amounts.
He gets his "rewards" before, during, and after. Sometimes his reward is his own sexual gratification. He's known me for most of his life and respects me. There is no need for operant or classical conditioning between us. He likes me and wants to please me.
By blinding yourself to the fact that your own dog is a thinking, feeling individual capable of loving you, you are denying yourself some of the best things in life.
I'm sorry that I am having so much trouble finding things that you can understand. It would worry me if most other respondents to this thread weren't having the same problem.
You want a fine example of what you are missing?
http://www.sgtreckless.com/Reckless/About_Reckless.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Reckless
Please note that this horse who was without formal training and noted for her independence and strong will was awarded rank and honors by the ultra conservative military. There's a message there.
No, I've never seen an animal do math, cook, talk, walk on two legs, behave like a human, laugh, etc.
Just... no.
Because you're using an animal for your own sexual urges.
Look, I know that anyone who does such a thing does it for themselves, or at least mainly for themselves. There's no shame in it: Everyone here just admitted that there's no downside to exploiting animals.
And I'd do anything to have sex, even if I had to murder someone else for it. No shame at all.
If only he knew that sex pleased you.
Blinding yourself? Sorry but, that's exactly the opposite here.
Love is what blinds you all zoophiles, because I used to feel attracted to animals too and love towards my dog, but I only started realizing certain things when I lost all these feelings.
And you know, love is known to blind others, and that's no different here. Thinking animals can consent to sex is one thing, but you're all going way too overboard here.
And hey, I don't deny it. She'd make great sex, if only I knew how to do properly do it. I'd love her for that.
It still does not prove anything.
What part of "attempt" don't you understand?
First, that applies to everything that we do. Sex is just an every once in a while thing. Second, mutual exploitation is just another way to say "share".
I've got news for you. Sex pleases him far more than it pleases me. It's been a lot of years since I initiated sex with him.
There's no doubt about it, the whole world is out of step except you.
It proves that a whole lot of hard minded realistic people believe that a horse has free will and chooses to join them in their society and work. BTW, she wasn't even the first.
</thread>
I've never seen them attempt it either.
Oh so you're even exploiting them in a non-sexual way?
How funny that even regular animal owners don't exploit their animals. Says a lot about this community.
And not a very respectful one.
Let's resort to childish insults disguised as a compliment if all else fails.
Well, my point still stands, then. Love always blinds, that's a part of love.
So just another irrelevant thing you brought up? Oh, okay. I know that happens very frequently with you.
Wow!
I've been sitting on this one for a while, but I think I'm going to just settle for an informal discussion of do's and don'ts with this post.
Personal attack right off the bat without any cushion or explanation.
Hostile slippery slope.
Could have been phrased much less severely, and as an aside more conversationally. ie "I can see your logic behind it, but don't you think their differences are a bit too great to make that conclusion?"
It might seem hard to pull off, but there are better ways to phrase this as well. ie "I really don't mean to offend, but I don't like being associated with people like you when I think zoophile."
I'll just delete it.
That'd probably hurt continuity for future readers, but alright.
I kind of changed my mind on this subject out of a sudden.
I regret this thread and what I said, but at least it brought this up for once.
Judging by your responses to others answers, you already have an answer. The crux of your dilemma seems to be whether they "understand" what they are doing. That's about as vague and subjective as you can get; and yet you've disagreed with every person saying that their animals are acting of their own volition and show no signs of distress.
At the end of the day, they are animals. We can't sit down with them and have a conversation about consent and willingness. If you love your animals, you can read their body language and behavior very clearly, then no one outside the situation can tell you you're right or wrong when interpreting it unless it's clearly harmful.
I don't.
None of them have given me evidence that they understand.
It's not vague, they should understand like how they understand PiV sex, and they don't.
Yeah and animals show no signs of understand what they are doing during such things. That is their body language: They lick it until the taste is gone.
And they clearly do it for the taste. Dogs will lick you anywhere they like and they will react no different to a penis.
This subs sudden like of exploitation really creeps me out. I really don't want to do this on purpose, but if that's how zoophiles are I'm willing to stop zoophilia from progressing further, just so I can save the animals...
So you're obviously out to prove that oral sex is exploiting them...
What would you consider proof that they comprehend every little thing that they are doing? You don't think animals know certain scents and parts of the body are inherently meant for sexual reasons?
If a woman gets on all fours and a dog chooses to lick her before mounting or just lick her without any prompt is considered exploitation to you, than yeah, maybe you should give it up.
When evidence is shown that clearly implies that they understand what they are doing and that their intent is to pleasure you. But that is very hard believe if this behavior isn't even present in wild animals. The only ''evidence'' is that this was learned from behavior when they were young and not even sexually mature.
That is a completely different story and that makes sense: It's a part of PiV sex for dogs.
However, in some cases they don't do it as a preparation for sex.
And note that I'm mainly talking about animals performing oral on males. That is the biggest problem here.
yeah, you do. you refuse to even really listen to the responses of people here. you're already convinced you're right. this thread is pointless.
i'm guessing you like the sound of your own voice IRL, too.
No, you cannot read my mind.
I did, otherwise I wouldn't respond to them. I just stopped because I'm fucking tired and it's just like how antis do it: Repeat the shit others say.
I'd be convinced if actual scientific evidence was given to me that they do understand it, yet it has never happened.
All that happened was others sharing their experiences and overanthropomorphising animals, with no real and direct evidence.
Extremely irrelevant.
Probably some childish insult or something, but no I don't.
A scientific study on animals understanding of bestiality is never going to happen, because having sex with animals is illegal most places, and taboo in all others.
Nice excuse.
Lol. Why are you such an obnoxious asshole to people? Maybe you 'hate humans' because nobody can stand to spend 5 minutes around such a bitter, hateful person. There's just no need to be so hostile all the time.
It's not an 'excuse', I have no idea WTF that even means, it's a fact - there is unlikely to be any significant research into animal-human sexual contact any time soon because in order to conduct it scientists would have to break the law. Besides, what's the motivation for the general public? Where is the funding going to come from? This is not an issue 99% of the human population cares about - most people are happy to leave it at 'fucking animals is wrong'. For people like us there is value in such a study but most people simply do not care.
It's just how I am. I fucking hate my life so much so don't expect me to be kind.
It's not a fact, you said it'd never happen. At some point in time, sadly bestiality will be legal.
I guarantee there are people who have gone through worse than you ever have or will, and who hate their lives and themselves just as passionately - the difference is most people don't make their own bullshit everybody else's problem. Making everybody else's life worse isn't going to make your life any better.
You're being very pedantic. For all practical purposes, it will never happen, because for it to happen there'd have to be huge drastic changes to laws and society that I don't think there's actually indication of. There is no reason to think that sex with animals will be seen as morally acceptable within our lifetimes.
You really don't understand it, do you?
Shall I repeat it, as if you were a child?
''It's just how I am.''
''... so don't expect me to be kind.''
Both of these sentences imply that I have no control over it.
Let me repeat this: NO CONTROL
Also, just because anyone can't stand it doesn't mean I should change. I'm fucking pissed, so it's very hard for me to be even nice, ESPECIALLY when I think everyone here is supporting and participating in unethical acts.
Do. You. Understand. That?
Our lifetimes? Of course it won't happen.
In the following 2000 years? Probably not.
If humanity survives for another 2000 years, then maybe there's a chance.
But still, such studies don't have to be specifically about bestiality. It could just be about sexual behavior in animals, or it could just be a study about what animals understand of humans.
Every one of us has control over the words we choose to use and how we choose to behave. You are not falling unconscious at your keyboard and then awakening hours later to realize with horror you've been a dick. The fact you refuse to take responsibility for how you act is saddening, but not surprising. To compare somebody else to a child while saying 'I have no control over what I say or do!' is... well. shrug
But whatever. You have decided of your own free will to be as unpleasant as possible to anybody who has the misfortune of speaking to you. Maybe one day you will be able to take responsibility for how you behave instead of flailing your fists like a toddler and screaming that you 'can't help it'. I doubt it, though.
I object. The "If you love your animals, you can read their body language" is a trap many of us are eager to step into. Sure, when you are living with an animal for quite some time, you can "understand" the animal better than any random person on the street. But I´ve seen so many cases of obvious misinterpretations from real and genuine animal lovers that I have to point out that love for an animal and actual knowledge about their body language are two different things not connected to each other in any way. I´ve seen too much of these "Don´t worry! He just wants to play......Oh, shit, I´ll call the ambulance!" cases where dogs of "real and genuine dog lovers" attacked other dogs or even children. Having sex with an animal doesn´t miraculously turn you into a Dr Dolittle. It wasn´t the relationship with my mare for 22 long and paradisic years that gave me insight into how horses click, it was all the years of observation of a large number of different equines that made me understand them a little better than the average horse enthusiast. I´ve run into so many horseowners, all claiming to love their horse as part of their family, but constantly failing at understanding even the most basic things about their horses....two and a half years back, I made my money with exactly these cases...and I had looots of people asking me to correct their beloved horse.
I just wish that this fairy tale of "you fuck animals, therfore you understand them better than everybody else" would disappear into oblivion, where it rightfully belongs. I also have to object to the "...then no one outside the situation can tell you you´re right or wrong" part, we all know examples of "the old dog lady" or even those who let their dogs fight each other. They all tell you the same , without any distance from their own perspectives, claiming that the dog lady´s poodle clearly showing traits of mental defects from being kept in the house the entire life actually enjoys his life and that the dogs involved in these illegal dog fights are actually enjoying it. Never underestimate the human mind´s capacity to fool itself. Even Hitler thought he was a good guy, even Stalin thought the same of himself...Our critics/opponents always bring up this commonly shared "zoo" illusion of "fucking an animal = totally understanding an animal" as proof of how far off from reality we are and I think they´re right about this. Even I, with almost three decades of experience with horses, with all my efforts to really understand them (while my colleagues were enjoying their weekends in the local disco, I stayed at the stables, observing and trying to learn), wouldn´t claim to fully understand horses. I probably have a "higher than average" understanding and never was injured by them (what in my profession as a riding instructor is an absolute rarity), but I too am miles away from full understanding. The moment you think you have completed this task, another horse shows you how little you actually understand...
[deleted]
Well, I can only contribute to this topic what I´ve experienced with my Hannover mare. As you may recall I wrote that she didn´t like the deworming procedure and spat out the paste; my fellow equestrians told me I should start training her to accept the plastic syringe inserted sideways into her mouth, so I did exactly that. The entire routine...I cuddled with her, scratched her neck and the base of her ears, calmed her down (she always knew what was going on once she saw the plastic syringe and tried to avoid this procedure..I assume she had been hit during the dewormings from her former owner) and very slowly got that plastic syringe near her mouth. Due to the fact that I already knew her for more than a year as a horse that was used for the beginners and had to work with her every few days to correct and train her , we already were close and understood each other quite well, so she quickly learned to allow me to insert the syringe and apply the deworming paste to the base of her tongue. At the end of this process, I didn´t even had to lift her head once the paste was in her mouth anymore to make her swallow it. But still, there was no intent from my side to train her for giving me oral. At this time, I never thought of that in any way.
But there was this one day when we both were rather alone and I had nothing, no work to do anymore, so I decided to pay her a visit to cuddle with her, as we usually did. I hugged her, had a wonderful day with her before, we had a 2 hour ride in the fields and woods,and she did as she always did, she pressed her head against my chest, expecting me to scratch her neck , nibble at her withers and things got more and more heated. With her mouth in my crotch, I still don´t know what brought me to actually considering inserting my penis into her mouth, but somehow I threw all my concerns away and did it. First, she tried to retract , but only a bit as I continued scratching, kissing and caressing her. A few seconds after that, she lowered her head again, taking me fully in...and then she rolled her tongue in a munching manner...I just came so hard it almost was painful. You´d expect her to shy away from the ejaculation, but quite the opposite, she pressed her head even more firmly against my chest and took all of me, she even swallowed and not one drop found its way onto the straw in her box. After that initial experience, we did it this way every 8 -10 days and she quickly identified it as intimacy. When she was in heat, she even got noticably wet from giving me oral, often followed by her trademark flick of her head towards her rear, probably "saying" someting like "Hey, you know there´s a second round in this bout!", demanding me to mount her.
Of course we can debate about the training factor here, we can discuss how much of her behaviour was learned and how much was natural, but I never felt that this was something I had to teach her to do. All it took was the intimacy we shared and a few years ahead, she trusted me so much and enjoyed giving me oral , she actually stomped her front hoof onto the ground when I wasn´t in the mood or other people were present who kept me from meeting her demands. My lovely lady was literally pissed when she couldn´t get what she wanted...;)
I never used anything to coerce or train her into doing this, she never got food as a reward for doing it, her only "reward" was me "going down" on her, giving her oral before or after she did, depending on our mood and the situation. Another thing to mention is that she really enjoyed when I got under her, sucking and licking her teats and udder. In her main heat phase, she got so aroused by it that she assumed the equine natural mating position, with spread hind legs and all. I remember very well the first time she spread her hind legs, because I falsely assumed she was traing to walk away and hastily got out of her hind hooves´range...her face when I was quickly getting out from under her will be always in my mind...she looked at me with that expression of "What´s wrong? Why are you standing at my side again?" and I was so full of adrenaline I started to laugh while my heart was pumping like a drum. Well, I don´t know whether this can serve as a proof of oral being natural for animals, but I´ve seen male horses, both stallions and geldings alike, masturbating with their mouth and teeth involved, giving themselves head. Some even softly bite their own penis. And I have seen mares nibble at "their "stallion´s penis, not a common thing in horses, but I´ve seen quite a few mares doing exactly that, with a noticable increase of arousal in the stallion, possibly as some equine foreplay.
What else? I´ve never done this fellatio thing with another mare but my first Hannover bred one, not before her and not with my Tinker lady. I guess I´ll keep "getting head" from a mare as something strictly reserved for the one angel I was granted to meet in my life. I don´t know, maybe it´s just my inner urge to see her as a very unique and lovely female I was so lucky to have as my first longtime relationship...even with four mares standing just around the corner, only a few meters away from where I type this, I still miss her so much. Of course, this is anecdotal and hardly proves anything, but I tend towards the side of "natural behaviour" , depending on the practice and whether the animal actually gets sexually aroused by it. The "peanut butter trick" is just that, a trick, not natural and not sexual at all....
I never knew you'd be a victim of anthropomorphism. Almost the whole post gave me that feeling you were blinded by that.
Out of all stories here, I find your story the most similar to actual trained behavior.
I guess I was right. Damn, I'm not even dissapointed. I guess I really am a one-in-thousand, even though I made my own girl also a victim of this. At least I see it...
Where exactly do you see any anthropomorphism here? Because my mare gave me oral? And how is this trained behaviour when the actual training of accepting the deworming without spitting out the stuff is something she hasn´t linked to performing oral on me? You should have seen her sceptical face whenever I entered her box with one of those plastic syringes...the face she never made when the "pink syringe" came into play...and , as I have said, this is nothing I will ever have with my Tinker mare. My Hannover mare was my perfect partner and I knew that fellatio isn´t a pretty common thing for mares (although not totally excluded, as I have written)...for you, this may seem as "anthropomorphism", but for me, this was just a symptom of our exceptional relationship and limitless trust. The one who actually needed training on this was me...or how do you think it turns out when your most precious body part is only a few centimeters away from sharp incisors, pre-molars and molars that could easily turn your dick to a bloody pulp in an instant? As I said, this isn´t something I ever had in mind when I bought her, but she always was aiming for my crotch, even long before fellatio ever took place. I happen to smell interesting for mares, at least it seems so to me, ´cause some of my old affairs AND my new lady are sniffing me down there quite frequently.
The problem you seem to have is to separate where the mutual adaption in a relationship ends and where the training starts. Yes, I have trained her to accept the deworming (btw, that´s vital to the horse´s health) ,but don´t you think that the deworming action, lasting roughly about three seconds , and full blown fellatio are somehow a bit different from each other? I also have "trained " her to accept the bit by inserting my finger into her mouth, tickling her tongue...for the simple reason not having to force the bridle onto her like many of those beginners she had to endure before I bought her. For the training part, i think it´s important to distinguish between training and training with the sole purpose of having "better" or more comfy sex...I always preferred the real thing because I need to touch a mare´s hips and feel the base of her tail against my belly to get full satisfaction. I never trained her so she "performs" on me...it all came quite naturally, without any intent. Not exactly what you can call training, eh? I enjoyed it because she offered it to me, freely,without any pushing or training from my side...wouldn´t you also eagerly accept that when your dog frankly offers it to you, as a part of sexuality, with her fluids starting to flow? My mare definitely identified fellatio as something sexual , even the very first time we did it. Soon after this experience, she did her head fling thing towards her butt and tip-toed sideways until I had her beautiful rear directly in front of me...of course I slept with her again. She seemed to like it very much, so I accepted it even though fellatio could be considered a human thing...I wonder if you would decline when a mare offers you this, reagrdless of which sexual world this belongs to. One final detail: training includes improvement over time. That was not the case with her and me, the first ever fellatio almost completely matched the last time she gave me head, only two days before she died. The only thing that was a bit different was the fact that she played around with my penis with her tongue more , almost munching away on it, rolling her tongue around it in her mouth. If you still think that minutes of friction is somehow connected to teaching her to ingest her deworming correctly, with only a few seconds of inserting the applicator into her mouth, then you don´t know much about horses.
I can assure you that no form of training was involved and neither was what you call anthropomorphisation. She often initiated it by presing her mouth against my crotch, chewing and munching. For me, it´s more of a training when you put a portion of hay in front of your mare so she won´t wander off during intercourse, a practice often used within our scene. Maybe my mare just liked being tickled on her tongue, maybe she really knew this was sex and enjoyed it...who knows? All I can say is that I didn´t have to direct her to do this, neither did I have to make her do this with rewards like treats or apples.
The fact that you think it's right to do is.
Then what was the point of your whole story? What's the point of even pointing it out?
The answer is simple: If she only blew you because you trained her to accept the deworming, then you did indeed train her. I know that deworming is needed for animals, but this does not change the fact that she was trained sexually.
There really is no hard logic behind it.
Well no, no such thing arouses me so I'd have to be in the mood myself. I mean, her sexual urges don't matter anyways, according to everyone here it's alright if you exploit them.
I would decline.
Because when I realized that I was exploiting my girl, I wanted her to stop. Even when she tried to lick, I had to punish her because it's just not right.
Your post really gives me a damn creepy feeling, by the way.
It really doesn't have to.
And I can assure you that ISIS is doing ethical stuff. Yep, yes, yeah yeah yeah.
See? You have many doubts there. Not even you know what's going on.
Also, just like everyone else here, you failed to realize that just because they participate in the act doesn't mean it's right.
Well, I guess I don't have much right to say if I had sexual contact with my bitch when she didn't even hit the age of 2, but I guess now that no one has a problem with rape and exploitation as long as it doesn't hurt them, I can straight up admit that I've had sex with a non-sexually mature animal. And hey, that's not even the most fucked up thing I had done imo.
And 30-30, it surprised me you at least don't disagree with the rest of the others here.
Some of these comments look like comments you'd reply to. You know that they straight up admitted that exploitation / sexual training isn't bad for animals? Not even lying here, have a close look at them and they just say it just like that.
This is one of the many mistakes I see in this community. Isn't this what we hated Aluzky for?
I actually feel bad for him, because like he says he actually IS treated unfairly. Like, everything we judged him for is suddenly no problem here. I've seen the majority of this community say ''I don't like Aluzky.'' yet I'm presented with the answers in this thread.
I know it's a little irrelevant, but isn't things like this why we were against fencehopping either? I guess we also accept that now.
...And I have no problem with that, by the way.
This is exactly why I was afraid to make threads, because every time I ask certain questions (And I know I won't like the answers beforehand.) the true nature of zoophiles comes out.
With the current ethics you all have I'm afraid you'll never go forward. I don't mean this as something bad, but I'm willing to stop zoophiles from progressing and I will give ourselves a bad name. I don't even do it on purpose, I just want to protect. But because all the idiots here are unaware of what they're doing, I guess this is the best thing I could do and warn non-zoos of how dangerous zoophiles can be.
I'm not kidding here, I'm not surprised we got as far as we got. If you can even call that far.
You know what also confuses me, 30-30? Didn't you doubt that animals could consent? Well here you are with rest, making the dumbest statements I've ever heard.
Like, thinking that animals can consent is one thing, but thinking they are able to understand things like this? That's... way too far. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cringe, cry or laugh at the stupidity.
Do I need to repeat this shit, also? ''Sexually training an animal for your own sexual urges is wrong. It's using an animal, that's just disrespectful. You have so many things you can learn and you waste it on sex. You're changing them into more sexual beings than usual. I can't call zoophilia ''love'' if shit like this happens. It doesn't even matter if you think it doesn't hurt them, this just isn't love because you're doing it for YOURSELF. You don't exploit in love.''
It's not directly directed at you, but I thought I'd just leave some facts out there. And maybe as a reminder you're in a group with a lot of fucked up humans who don't agree to this, and hoping that others who say things like ''If you love your animal, you can read their body language.'' see this and realize it.
Oh, and I promise you that I was 100% serious in this post. I just thought I had to say that, because I actually defended Aluzky. In my opinion, he's not really worse than anyone here, and that is my honest opinion since recently.
Heh, only now I realized that a damn word to describe me should be the least of my concerns. In fact, ''exclusive zoophile'' or even anything with ''zoophile'' in it doesn't even describe me any more, except that I've been horrible just like anyone else here.
I personally don't think it's incredibly important that an animal 'knows what it's doing' or receives sexual pleasure/satisfaction from performing oral sex. I have a dog who will lick my face ceaselessly if I allow it - I don't think it suddenly becomes abusive/exploitative if she were licking my genitals of her own free will.
Would I be exploiting her if I had a big ol' fetish for my face being licked and I was cumming my tits off while she did that? Would I be morally obligated to stop her because I might orgasm or feel sexual pleasure? Personally I don't think so. I also don't think that 'sex' is a particularly unique/special thing that nothing else compares to. There are plenty of activities I might do with a dog that make me feel happy, even if my dog doesn't fully understand why I am happy. They are happy because I am happy.
There are all kinds of weird behaviours humans want that mean nothing to a dog 'naturally'. For instance my dog doesn't naturally wait for me to put her food down before going calmly over to it and eating - that's something I've trained her to do because it makes my life easier/happier/better. If you want to get into 'is it exploitative to teach a dog to do things it wouldn't choose itself' then, like, maybe the question is more like 'is owning animals in itself exploitative'... I'm sure some here would say yes it is!
Also, saying 'they don't know you are enjoying it' is probably untrue. Animals pick up on a lot of stuff we don't (chemicals, changes in posture and tone, etc.) and beyond that if somebody was actually training their dog to perform oral they would probably be providing praise, affection, treats, etc, so the reward would be two-fold for the animal (human is happy AND I get pets/treats/praise).
TL;DR: I don't think it's wrong to allow your pet to lick your genitals or even to encourage them to do it with praise and/or treats (peanut butter). What I /do/ think is that the OP of that other thread needs to learn to read tone and work out that they wouldn't get a good response to their question here.
You specifically stated ''oral sex'' instead of just ''sex.'' Is there any reason for it? Because it's not any different but it is both wrong if they don't understand it.
I guess there's no difference between stroking an underage creature on their head and between stroking an underage's penis.
It is exploitation if you only gain pleasure from it and only do it for yourself.
I have not seen evidence for it.
Also, they are busy having sex. They are not paying attention to you, they are currently focusing on having sex.
It is if you do it solely only for your own pleasure and if it's true.
I thought we all were against this sort of thing, like training animals for sex.
Why is it that when I always speak up, the true ugly nature of zoophiles come out? It makes me fucking sick.
I need a break...
The topic was about animals performing oral sex on humans. But aside from that, it's because I'm pretty sure animals 'understand' a human having sex with them the same amount they 'understand' having sex with another animal (and they 'understand' that a human touching or licking them in a certain way feels nice in a sexual way)... There are natural/inherent motivations for an animal to seek out that behaviour (receiving penetration, giving penetration, rubbing/grinding against hands). There is no such motivation for an animal to perform oral sex on a human (it doesn't feel pleasurable for them and isn't a 'natural' behaviour).
Okay, first of all, as I pointed out above I'm talking specifically about receiving oral sex from an animal because that doesn't bring the animal any sexual pleasure.
The reason we don't (or I don't) screw around with animals who aren't sexually mature is because it's harmful for them, and can mess up their development. Letting them lick you 'inappropriately' is probably better in the sense it doesn't screw with anything 'natural' (they won't be getting the sexual reward from it), but it would also be bad for them because it would teach them inappropriate behaviour + could have consequences for them and the owner.
I mean. I have dogs because I gain pleasure from it. I control everything in that animal's life. You literally cannot have an 'equal' relationship with an animal (at least most of them), because at the end of the day you have all of the power, in a way they literally cannot even comprehend. What's exploitative vs non-exploitative behaviour to you, in the scope of normal (non-zoo) pet owner behaviour?
link link link There aren't many big studies on it yet, but there's also a lot of anecdotal 'evidence' - your experience might be that your animal doesn't respond to your emotions, but many many people (most of them non-zoos) would agree animals respond to human emotions. Whether naturally or a learned behaviour is still up for debate, but there is next to no doubt that animals can pick up on facial cues/body language/etc.
... What? Animals are capable of noticing more than one thing at a time. That's like saying 'your pet can't possibly understand you are praising it while it's doing a complex trick, it's focused on doing the trick!' ... Having sex doesn't mean you aren't aware of anything else going on around you at all (like, even just from an evolutionary point of view that's ludicrous - mating makes animals vulnerable anyway, but if doing it completely caused them to have no ability to pay attention to what's happening around them? yipes!)
I wouldn't do it personally, I just don't see it as an issue any more than I see training animals to do other things as being abusive/wrong. Again, if you have an issue with, say, a dog being trained to 'shake' on command, or a horse being trained to 'count', then that's consistent, but otherwise I don't get it.
Did you just prove my point?
It's the same here. Their consent does not count because they don't understand the situation.
This has a bad effect on them and it's exploitation.
That's true, but you can still try to make things right.
But what matters most to me is the equality in sex. It's something you both should enjoy.
I'm not a non-zoo so I wouldn't know.
There's certain exploitative things you can't prevent. What matters to me is exploitation in sex.
Because again, both should enjoy it.
No no, I understand. It's just that I have a hard time realizing they'd pay attention to such things in sex.
Yeah, and that seems very suspicious...
Except sex is different. They're focusing on the act and are also distracted because of the pleasure.
Judging by how she reacts to when I finger her or give her oral she doesn't seem to be that wary or seems to pay attention to me.
Because animals have a life.
There's a thing such as training your animals for actual good things. Shaking and counting can help them and it's ''healthy'' in a way as it increases their intelligence.
Training them for sex is sad, their behavior will be changed just so you can get to fuck more.
Notice how some zoos' animals tried having sex with strangers. You don't want a sex-driven hyperactive animal who's life revolves around sex.
? I don't know? Did I? Because I thought the discussion was 'is letting an animal give you oral wrong' - and I'm saying 'I don't think so'. I'm not arguing 'animals 100% understand what giving oral sex is'.
Although again because of learned behaviours/interactions, if you've had 'normal' sex with your animal they may well realise you're reacting the same way/similarly to oral sex, which could be considered a kind of 'understanding'.
Proof pls?
That's a personal opinion and value you're placing on sex because it's sex. Even so, there are many reasons for an animal to enjoy this, from receiving praise to causing reactions in their human, to just enjoying that peen taste. Just because an animal is not being sexually stimulated doesn't mean they can't get other things out of the activity. It sounds like the only thing that would put your mind at ease is hearing 'when your animal performs oral sex they are aroused by it and not just doing it to please you' - that's not even true in many humans!
Suspicious how?
There's no reason to think 'sex is different'. You're just idly speculating based on your own limited experiences.
This is a big leap and I don't think is especially relevant to the topic at hand. You can train animals to perform certain behaviours and you can also train them to perform that behaviour in response to cues (and stop behaviour in response to a different cue).
I think in some cases here you're kind of misinterpreting intelligence and the ability to understand other species as anthropomorphizing. Nonhuman animals, dogs especially, can do most of the things that toffees has said, and understanding anatomy is rather basic. I agree that your dog seems to be a bit of an exception to that rule, as well. There seem to be dogs, horses, and what have you that are more perceptive to human sexual cues than others, and it really wouldn't surprise me if there were some that were, not quite on par with another human, but fairly close in their understanding of the situation on a basic level.
I'm not straight up denying it, but that they will catch things like this during sex is straight up BS to me.
I thought zoos were responsible and I'd have much, much better responses. Like the fact that at least this is questionable or that this part of bestiality hasn't been studied enough?
And yeah, isn't it weird that out of all dogs, mine doesn't seem to realize things like this? Her breed is supposed to be smart, yet she can't pick up those emotions. Or at least she doesn't notice it when I'm sad, happy, etc.
The only thing is that she used to very forceful with sex and never did the things during sex described by others. This is super suspicious.
How is it that out of all zoophiles' animals mine is so different in anything sex related? This is why I have some damn trust issues with this community. I can't believe them for shit.
Anyways, if there won't be any scientific evidence provided that animals are aware of one's emotions during sex, aware of the fact that humans enjoy it and that they understand such a thing as giving oral to humans then I won't believe the BS others came up with in this thread.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily denote emotional perceptiveness or sensitivity, mind. It plays a part, to be certain, but what you're really looking for is empathy. Even my cats seem to be more emotionally sensitive than your dog does. If the sensations during sex were capable of overriding their perception, then shouldn't it be reasonable that they wouldn't be able to discern human concern from malicious intent when they accidentally break a leg, for instance? Generally speaking, though, that doesn't happen, and they're most often complicit with their caretakers or other humans despite the intense sensations. It is also true that most dogs are able to determine emotional states and medical conditions like hyperglycemia by smell as well as physical and audible cues. It's why dogs are so popular for emotional support, as medical service dogs, and other critical supplementary roles. Their understanding of human emotions and the human condition, generally, is only matched by hominids and perhaps cetaceans.
I think that's part of the issue here, there's not going to be any hard evidence because bestiality just isn't studied scientifically right now. So if you can't form an opinion about it without evidence in the form of a study, you probably won't get anywhere. Which is okay, it just doesn't seem reasonable to demand scientific proof when that's not something that's available or even being looked into.
People are addressing the ethical issue left and right, and most of what I'd like to say on that issue has been said already, so I don't feel like addressing it. Instead, I would like to address a factual issue:
Then, allow me to inform you. There are various species which perform oral sex on each other, and it is not just "male checking out a female" sort of behavior.
First of all, bats are well known for performing fellatio, particularly some species of fruit bats. There are some various proposed reasons for this, including sexual health reasons, mating fitness, and just for pleasure, though to my knowledge there is no consensus.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007595
Bonobos are also well known for their various sexual exploits, and that includes oral sex.
It's also worth mentioning that autofellatio has also been observed, as a form of masturbation, in various animals.
Oh, and, looking into this to answer your question, I also found something new, that I didn't know about previously: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850386/
Apparently oral sex isn't limited to mammals, or even to chordates.
People underestimate the diversity of sexual behavior in animals.
I'm absolutely disgusted.
It's always that when I ask about something or when I argue here, I always see the true, ugly nature of zoophiles. It scares me.
So much irony, double standards and hypocrisy. Well, not in every comment but it's so common here.
To be a part of it makes me even disgusted of my own actions to be the same ''team'' as anyone else here.
But hey, since no one here cares about animal exploitation nor training their animals for sex, I guess I'll have no choice to agree that there aren't any downsides to it, huh? Don't you dare judge me if I do it myself.
This isn't even a threat, because you all don't seem to care anyways. I may feel bad for it, but I can always remind myself it the rational comments and real evidence I've received that exploitation or training isn't bad if there's no downsides to it.
Hopefully when I finally delete this account some day soon, I'd hope that some day some certain things will be realized. But my hope is dead anyways, so all I can leave is a ''good luck.''
EDIT: Downvotes already after 5 minutes? But wait, I'm doing nothing wrong! What is it exactly that I'm doing?
Oh right, don't answer. I know. It's because it's me. Only others are allowed to exploit and sexually train animals.
Can anyone explain why I can't but others can?
If I were to guess, I would say it's because you've been conditioned to think that humans aren't animals and that sex is a special, magical thing. Also, you appear to be unwilling to examine the topic from any other position and as such, appear to be unable to see what others are trying to explain to you. If nothing else, I highly recommend you study behavioral conditioning as you have repeatedly shown you do not grasp some basic principles which would show that some of your reasoning is fallacious.
I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're getting at here. Are you "threatening" to have sex with your dog? If so, that seems totally illogical. I strongly encourage people to not engage in behaviours which they do not aprove of. This response is so absurd that I can only presume that I have misunderstood you, I find it hard to believe anyone could so irrational.
That makes no sense.
I do and I only realize that the zoophiles here are talking straight up BS.
Maybe if I had some actual scientific evidence this was right, I could've believed it.
No? The zoophiles here have proven me wrong and straight up admitted training animals for sex and exploiting them for sex doesn't matter, as there are no bad effects to these things.
And I said and promised that I will do exactly that. There's no reason for anyone to downvote me because I'm only agreeing with them in this case and will use animals for my own sexual urges, just like they allow it.
Thought I'd never agree to doing such a thing, but hey, if the zoophiles are so right I guess I'll listen to them.
This isn't even a threat, I've been greatly jealous of every zoo for years, so I'll follow their exact same route if it means I'll be happy with a good sex life, just like them.
Ah yes, those terrible people, attempting to engage in reasoned debate with you. Best way to show them you're right, that you aren't blinded, that you're in full control of your faculties, is by doing what you say is a horrible, horrible thing. I presume you're making a poor atempt at hyperbole, but given your posts it's hard to really be sure.
All aboard!
If you aren't taking me seriously then there's no reason to talk with you.
Because I know that I am being serious. Call it all a hyperbole you want, but that's what a lot of humans do as an excuse to not take another human seriously.
And damn, you are the weirdest human I've ever met.
First I don't agree with them and you flip your shit.
Then I do agree with them and you flip your shit.
Might wanna get your brain checked, because that there does not make any sense.
Nobody wants you to do a damn thing. If you go and do something you think is wrong it's your own fucking fault and you don't get to go and say anyone here told you to because nobody did. Nobody did. Not if you actually pay attention to what is being said.
You seem to decide what it is you want to see and then only ever read that no matter what is actually said. You do this every thread. You know why people are always confused when you try to repeat what you think others have said? It's because nobody actually said those things.
I worded that wrong.
Thanks, cap. obvious.
Sorry, but that's not true.
A whole lot of assuming here and you're not even close to right.
I don't.
Except that didn't happen.
I've seen numerous instances of you being provided that here, and outright ignoring it.
Look, maybe you are having second thoughts about the ethical nature of this lifestyle. That's fine. But try to recognize WHY.
No, I had my counter arguments.
Also, the fuck? Lifestyle? Lmao ok.
I've really had a hard time seeing them, but maybe it'd be easier if you toned down the vehemence a bit and treated us all like fellow human beings.
What do you think a sexuality is exactly? Lifestyle is certainly one term you could use for something like zoophilia, which basically requires you to center your life around it.
Then it's not my problem.
I do treat your like human beings.
I think you should know who you're talking to.
I've never seen the word used for heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality so it's a bit new to me.
And no, it doesn't require to center your life around it. You were reasonable in your replies until this.
I thought zoophilia was only an attraction and required no actions to be done according to this community?
And even if you do listen to your zoophilic urges, it's still not centering your life around it. What, is everything we do now a lifestyle?
FELLOW human beings. As in, you and I are both humans, have some mutual respect?
You've really gone off the deep end as of late. You of all people should know there is no way of carrying a secret like zoophilia without it changing your life forever. Yes, that is a lifestyle. Quit getting hung up on trivial words.
This is how I treat humans, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
Unless you're talking about ''treat how you want to be treated'' well I take it to the next level: Treat how you were treated.
And me respecting others here? That's going to be hard for me.
Especially when they're engaging in unethical acts.
Duh, I hate my life.
I'm not sure how that's even true or what you mean. Explain?
Oh it is alright. Just like breathing, eating, walking, etc. It's all things we do and if we don't it's gonna change our lives forever.
Do I really need to elaborate?
And yes, a lifestyle is how one lives their life. Again, quit getting hung up on words.
Oh, okay.
Well, if you don't mind I'll go on with my Reddit lifestyle.
It's got many other lifestyles in it, sitting, typing, etc. So, see ya.
Unlike some people here, I too see blatant examples of hypocrisy, double standards, and irony in this community, but I find more often than anything it is the result of people being to stubborn to change their views, or just acting out of hostility. In a perfect world we could point out peoples argument flaws and they would willingly admit to their faults and that would be the end of it (or even better, there would be no logical fallacies in the first place). This is not the case though, and people make mistakes and act out of hostility.
As much as the comment threads in this post may have been rather "revealing" to you. I am very glad that there have been such long and argumentative comment threads on this post, because it shows that we have been willing to argue with each other and point out each other's flaws. And that is the first step to making this community better, identifying the bullshit and showing agreement on the good. We all say some crazy shit sometimes, its in everyone's best interest that we move on from it.
And the next time someone answers your question and comment aggressively, ask yourself why.
No doubt there are examples of hypocrisy, double standards, etc. There is no motive to improve unless people are called out on it and we work in a constructive, logical, patient way to resolve it.
Ignoring the topic, calling others stupid, ignoring points, or flipping out and throwing a bunch of unproductive nonsense and unjustified hollow opinions into the mix, are not constructive... no matter which side of the argument one might be on.
Although I agree with some of the arguments, I'm still not getting how it is exploitation if the animal actively or even enthusiastically decides to engage in the behavior, rather than walking away.
If one makes the argument that it's not quite 0.0000% exploitative therefore it's bad, why does it only become an issue when one body part is involved and not another?
Beyond this, while I realize "at least it's not X" arguments are not the best, it must be said (and already has been) that animal ownership is inherently exploitative. Nobody asked the animal if they wanted to be owned by you versus roaming free. Statistically, many "inconvenient" animals are euthanized when it suits the owner/shelter. Others selfishly prolong their animal's suffering while holding out hopes for miraculous cures.
Certainly riding a horse or using a service dog is exploitative, since these human-given tasks do not directly benefit the animal at all, are enjoyed by the human, and must be performed no matter how the animal feels. Their performance and compliance in these tasks is even refined by months/years of training. Are such people morally in the wrong for using their animal in such a way, or for training their animal to improve abilities desirable by humans?
Not to suggest I'm "pro-training" but it further highlights the selective double standard.
just like everyone else here, you failed to realize that just because they participate in the act doesn't mean it's right.
If "everyone else here" is failing to realize something about your point, maybe that indicates that you should clarify that part of your point, especially to those of us who offer several (uncontested) reasons that the opposite might be true.
Do I really have to explain that if someone agrees to do something doesn't mean it's right / understand the situation?
Holy shit, and I thought long ago something like this was obvious.
I mean, it's pretty self-fucking-explanatory.
It's not.
What are the potential negative consequences that may come from agreeing to do this?
That's usually why we require understanding to situations, because some may be dangerous.
Here? I just don't see it. So please, elaborate.
Sexually training an animal for your own sexual urges is wrong. It's using an animal, that's just disrespectful. You have so many things you can learn and you waste it on sex. You're changing them into more sexual beings than usual. I can't call zoophilia ''love'' if shit like this happens. It doesn't even matter if you think it doesn't hurt them, this just isn't love because you're doing it for YOURSELF. You don't exploit in love.
Everything in life is learning, save maybe suckling in mammals, and if they are lucky, maybe the ability to walk. I'm unsure I can see the distinction between this and learning sex from ones parents, which happens in nature all the time by watching mom and dad hump, frankly. It's not like we have a "learning limit" we have to worry where the learning will suddenly stop, or something.
On that I will agree. But if it's done in a way that you both enjoy? Wherein is the issue then? This should be pretty easy to distinguish, honestly.
Because in this case they are participating in the act themselves, not just watching.
Doing it yourself has more effect than just watching, and if you keep doing such a thing their minds will revolve around it.
While it's not proven there's a bad effect on them, I still believe there is. I'm not sure how to explain it, but it's unbalanced.
If we do something too much or revole our lives around something too much, it becomes unhealthy. Both to the mind and body.
It's just that it defeats the purpose of zoophilia in a way.
It doesn't mean it's bad, but it's just saying that you don't really love your animal if you do so.
It's a shame... I thought zoophilia was about love, and that's coming from someone who lost his attraction, love towards his dog and who cares mostly about the sex when my depression hit.
From your logical methods used, pet ownership itself and imprinting used therein are all unnatural, forced upon them and thus not love.
I really don't see pet ownership as any less loving despite this. Ditto on this whole issue, which I view as a complete overthinking of something that actually is very simple. This is (dare I say it?) a very human flaw.
It's a best choice you have: Otherwise they wouldn't have a home.
So yes, it is love because you are giving them the best choice possible. Not really ''choice,'' but you know what I mean.
You cannot compare sexually exploiting your animal to keeping them at all.
Overthinking in zoophilia is also a good thing. This is a very serious and touchy subject, and no, it's not simple.
If anything goes wrong, it goes really wrong. We must make sure they aren't harmed and that zoophilia is what it's supposed to be: Love.
I'm glad your trying to think it through hard, that's commendable, but I mean songs have been written about how love itself is more or less a form of mutual exploitation that both parties enjoy. I don't really get why this is so wrong when applied to zoophilia. Love is mutual enjoyment when applied to the sexual context. The rest of the time? It is loving the individual and everything they stand for. If you think otherwise, I really do pity whatever happened to you.
It's not only just zoophilia. Humans can also be exploited in wrong ways.
I just don't care because they're humans. They deserve it anyways.
In fact, my mother just started exploiting her ex. She will only use him for the last of his money he has.
It's not just that I don't give a shit about such humans, but the thing is that there's a difference between animals and humans. Humans aren't as easily exploited as animals are.
That makes no sense.
Love does not change when it's involved in sex.
And for that reason you would not exploit them in any way because you want to equally enjoy it, and in most cases let them enjoy it even more.
Of course it does, at least behaviorally. You know this.
I mean I get what your saying, but sex does torque the boundries of love a bit, is all I mean. It's harder to control oneself for starters.
I think what you are failing to grasp is there is a big difference between something being "right" and being "wrong." There's a lot of grey inbetween.
And for that reason you would not exploit them in any way because you want to equally enjoy it, and in most cases let them enjoy it even more.
I gave up on sex with my doe because the only thing I could prove she enjoyed was fingering. That was all she seemed to want. I wanted more, I wanted it bad. But I didn't. That should provide you your own answer.
I still don't go so far as to declare it "wrong" to do oral, if that's what you mean. I see it much more as a grey area.
PS: I don't know what happened to you, but I do know there are some nasty people out there in this community and if you had a horrid experience, feel free to write to me about it. I'll provide whatever insight I can. I may not be the most experienced zoo here, and some may say I am even a bit too accepting (this probably comes from some events in my history), but I am most decidedly not someone who exploits animals, for whatever that is worth, and I'd be happy to lend an ear. Just a proposal, no pressure.
I'm not sure if it's because I should have gone to sleep long ago, but I really don't know what you mean.
I'm not sure what that proves on your side. I mean, what you said proves what I said: Love does not involve exploitation.
You did it for her, so it wasn't exploitation. When you actually exploit such animals I really cannot believe you do it for them and that it's love.
It's in the definition of exploit: Using something in an unfair way so that it benefits you.
I've turned to that side, too.
I call it ''questionable'' or ''gray'' at this point.
No thanks, that ''treat how I was treated'' had nothing really to do with this community, or at least not much. It's more of my experience I've had with other humans, mainly.
And there's no way to cheer me up, unless you know how to magically make animal pussies bigger then I'm willing to take that advice. Because all I want these days is fuck my dog, and that's what partially made me so pissed.
And tbh, also because I lost my feelings of love, mostly my romantic and sexual attraction too.
If you don't know, just please don't talk about it.
Here's a picture/gif of a cat, hopefully it'll cheer you up :).
I am a bot. use !unsubscribetosadcat for me to ignore you.
#Do any of these describe YOU?
✓ Slow internet speeds?
✓ Limited cellular data plan?
✓ Too lazy to click a cat image?
#CATSCO has you covered!
Free, low-bandwidth cat solutions to cheer you up without the hassle of clicking!
I'm sorry. I indeed don't know what to say or do about that. Good luck, I guess?
What level of understanding do you think is needed in order for it to be "right"?
The animal should know this: That licking your genitals is a sexual act, just like other sexual acts.
For that to be true, they need to recognize that such a thing pleases a human and that the penis is a sexual organ.
Also their reason for licking your genitals should be for this reason: Because they are willing to sexually pleasure you.
Oh but that's just my opinion, I know it doesn't hold any value.
How about an animal that licks my genitals because he hopes to sexually excite me enough that I will sexually pleasure him? And don't bother questioning the possibility, it's happened thousands of times.
I'm going to be honest, for me that is very questionable that I cannot really say what my opinion is.
I think that it really depends on how the animals thinks.
This would be wrong to me: If the animal does it ONLY so they get sexual contact. So the animal doesn't do it to please you.
I don't really like it, it's a form of teasing or bullying in a way: You are keeping them away from something until they give you something you want. This, to me, is a form of training. To them, sex will become more important for them that way.
I think you should keep everything ''balanced.'' It's hard to explain, but it's the same reason you don't eat the same food every day and just hang 24/7 on your couch. Something becomes unhealthy both to the mind and body when you do it too much.
Animals are easily influenced by actions like this, and I think that always answering to their sex invites can also be bad for them, because their lives should not revolve around sex.
This would lean towards right to me: If the animal does it also to please you and knows that it pleases you. If they are only looking forward to that reward, well then it's just argument 1 all over again.
Relationship 101: my horse conveys to me that he wants something. I answer either "not right now" or "hell yes". I then do what is appropriate to the answer and situation and he responds in kind.
So how do you think a horse asks for sex? He starts playing with my erogenous zones. He grooms me until he can sneak in some ear nibbling or other button pushing.
He has other ways to ask for other things and sometimes just wants to hang out and be sociable. That is how animals talk. They signal intentions with actions.
For bonus points, what does it mean when a horse stomps a foot?
Taking the devil's advocacy a step further, what is gained in the knowledge that it is a sexual act? What about licking someone's neck or feet or something else that might cause arousal indirectly?
Your opinion has value, the value will be higher when it is stated objectively and when you have answers to address challenges to it.
This way the animal knows the gravity of the situation and know what they are doing.
I think that if they are aware of what they are doing in this case, they will be less likely influenced by it because they understand it's a sexual act and will decline if they're not into it.
We can train both young humans and animals. But why? They lack knowledge about these things so they are gullible and rely on us.
Young creatures rely on us because they don't know any better. So this actually also counts for adult humans and adult animals if they lack knowledge about something. (Mainly animals, because they are bred to rely on us and don't have the same intelligence as humans.)
So again, if a dog does not understand these acts they will be more likely to be heavily influenced by it.
As I have explained in some comments earlier, there's an imbalance here.
It's hard to explain, but it's the same reason you don't eat the same food every day and just hang ever day on your couch. Something becomes unhealthy both to the mind and body when you do it too much.
Excuse me for my shitty explanation, I've been bad at explaining things my whole life, so I won't blame you if you end up really confused.
I can't even explain why 1+1=2, so that's why.
Except there's a difference between sexual acts and these acts.
Still, sexual acts are not something learned (and it shouldn't be). It's something that is developed and I think that if animals are misused sexually it will fuck up such things.
Also, this'll be the last reply in this thread. I'll still be reading any replies from you or anyone else (so you won't be ignored and whatever you say will be kept in mind.) but fuck, I can only handle so many at a time.
And tbh, it only triggers my jealousy. I just wish I was the same like the others here.
I understand, it has been a long thread... and I appreciate the more thorough response. I think I am getting your point.
There are imbalances, and that's why people make strong, active efforts to minimize those imbalances. You can talk yourself into a paradox with anyone. Are they really saying what they feel? Are they just saying it because it's how they were raised or to make you happy? At some point, you need to take on faith (more accurately statistics, after many other communication experiences) that your communication is sound.
Animals make decisions of identical "gravity" about each other without any better moral compass, in any case.
yeehaw
I got some popcorn and a nice seat to sit back and watch the show
This is one of the most community-participation oriented and generally friendly posts I have seen you make in a while u/SCP_2547... Makes seeing all the controversial comments and responses even more interesting...
I dont have really any zoo-related experience with dogs, in fact my experiences with dogs only extend as far as the two that I have owned for the past two years. So instead I will throw in my thoughts and beliefs on the matter instead of trying to prove anything, I dont really have any leverage to do so.
I think that like all sexual acts, oral (especially when coerced with a stimulus such as peanut butter) can be bad, but this is not necessarily always the case. The think the question that we really need to ask ourselves (and what I have found in the comments for there to be a divide in beliefs in) is if getting sexual gratification by tricking an animal who appears to be enjoying their obliviousness is considered bad. Thats really what you would be doing here, tricking a dog to lick your genitals.
I dont think this is okay. Tricking an animal into performing what they dont know is a sexual act is a no no in my book, BUT that doesnt necessarily make using peanut butter or forms of contact such as oral bad.
I think that animals are capable of understanding foreplay and forms of sexual contact other than intercourse. Not only have I heard examples of this from other zoos, but we can also see it sexual acts between animals of that species (ex. male dog licking female dog's genitals before and/or after intercourse). Whether or not they have the gratification of their sexual partner in mind or not, I do not know - but regardless, other forms of sexual contact arent necessarily bad.
So lets say you have a dog who will more than willingly lick your genitals/give you oral WITHOUT peanut butter (also assuming the dog isnt just licking for salt etc.), then using peanut butter as an additional incentive isnt bad. BUT using peanut butter as coercion without the dog having knowledge of what they are doing is bad.
I will not make any comment on whether or not this is true. To be honest I just dont know. I lean towards the side of this being false from listening to what other people say, but that alone isnt enough to convince me of anything. Aside from that, even if an animal didnt care about your enjoyment, that doesnt mean they cant enjoy oral themselves. Maybe we should consider why humans enjoy oral actually (as much as I dont like using human sexual acts to make an argument, I really think its a good point for consideration here).
When it comes to training, I have mixed thoughts on it. I think training is alright as long it is not training for the purpose of deception. Training your dog to give you oral or any other sexual act in return for a treat or some other stimulus is training for deception. The animal is basically being self-forced by instinct to perform a sexual act in order to receive some form of sustenance (usually a treat, or maybe their own sexual gratification). On the other hand, training to educate is not bad in my opinion. An example training to educate would be training your dog to not run at cars on the highway. There is no form of deception here, in fact it is quite the opposite, as you are revealing a potential danger to the dog. If done properly, an incentive may not even be necessary to train the dog.
Well thats all I have.
This is actually a very good point. If behaviors like offering oral stimulation develop organically and most often in contexts where they would reasonably understand sexual connotations (be it a signal with attire or the lack thereof, a specific ritual, signal, perhaps just arousal on the part of the nonhuman animal, etc.), then we'd have a reasonably controlled case for confirming it.
If the animal is not being hurt or forced thin I don't see the problem. I don't see sex as a moral issue.
I'm with you, if the animal is happy and willingly participating, I don't see the problem. If it makes both you and your animal happier and doesn't cause any harm, it ethically checks out with me.
[removed]
[removed]
Judging by his responses, he's a troll. Move along, guys.
I'm not.
Maybe don't abuse this excuse used by many? This was all genuine.
In the end, my mind was still a little changed. And everyone knows I'm not a troll since I've been a regular here since almost a year ago.