My female dog is just about to come into season and I think I am on the verge of having full vaginal intercourse with her for the first time. I'm confident she's into and I know she's big enough to take me. We did fool around together a few times before. But I'm a bit afraid of hurting her and one of the things that worry me the most is the possibility of her being allergic to my sperm. I'd like to have some advice from those who have a bit more experience with female dogs than me on how to check if she's allergic without injuring her. Wearing a condom is a possibility but I'm sure you guys will understand I would much prefer to be as close to my furry girlfriend as possible during this special moment where we both lose our virginity. Thanks!
/r/zoophilia archive
I would mark this nsfw as it describes a sex act.
I haven't heard of the "dog sperm alergy" thing going the other way. Usually it's the human that's allergic to male dog sperm. I don't have advice on how to check either, but I'm certainly glad to see someone thinking carefully before jumping in! I'm sure a more knowledgeable individual will be along shortly.
Oh, sorry... I should have been more careful.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it go both ways. To be frank though, I never knew of anybody who reported incidents in relation to it, but if people talk about it I assume it's because there's a risk.
I don't want to hurt my girl, but I'm sure you'll understand I also don't want to rush to the vet with a creampied husky..
No, I certainly understand both cases being less than ideal. It's best to avoid the situation in the first place, which is why I think you'd best wait for someone who knows a bit more than I... I'm only basing what I said on rumor, really.
Hm... I'm not sure that there's a 100%-certain method for this. The two best methods for testing for allergies (blood tests and intradermal skin testing) are not really accessible without a vet so unless you have the most understanding vet ever you're out of luck with those.
You could do a modified version of the procedure to test if a plant is poisonous. Start by rubbing some semen on bare skin, wait and see if there's a reaction. If no, test some on the outside of the vulva, then a small amount inside. If she's already had contact/eaten some before with no reaction, it's probably safe.
Thanks. I was thinking about doing something similar but I wanted to see it there were maybe people who could give me tips. I've scoured some forums but found almost no information about this.
She did lick some off me a few times and also got some on her belly and face and it seemed fine. But it got stuck in her fur mostly... Phew, I guess that's a little nsfw :b sorry about that.
[removed]
[removed]
What sort of justification is that?!
It was clearly a joke
I hope...
[deleted]
"Love is Love"
In addition to what you've already been told, dogs tolerate Benedryl quite well. Not a recommendation but handy in emergencies.
Thanks, I did not know that... I hope it won't have to come to this, but it's indeed handy to know in emergencies.
Bee stings happen too as well as any number of other minor issues which benadryl can help with.
Also note, NSAIDS (aspirin, ibuprofen, etc) are typically NOT safe on dogs, especially not in typical human doses. Always consult with a trained profesional before attemping to medicate at home.
[deleted]
not about an allergy, but in case you weren't aware, i highly recommend a water-based lubricant. also .. UP and in. :) it's a sharp angle up when you enter. it took me a long time to get used to it. i still have problems sometimes (i've only been active 2-3 years).
I use j-lube. Seems to be the appropriate choice given that it was made for vets ;)
I've played a bit in her "vestibule" so I know how it's made down there a little bit. But thanks for the tips!
Here's to many more years of being active! Cheers!
[removed]
[removed]
... You should leave.
This shit is so fucked, how do you even find the tiniest bit of moral in it? Does this not class as animal abuse, that is literally in the RULES, you're a mod why do you keep this thread up?
I observe ethics and try to avoid any emotional investment in issues of morality, in favor of finding the best solution for all parties.
We have sufficient evidence to confidently assert that responsible, consensual(via their own biological forms of consent), and attentive sexual contact with nonhuman animals won't cause trauma and is not abusive in nature for the nonhuman animal.
[removed]
... You should leave too.
[deleted]
[removed]
... You should leave as well.
Every bitch I've known has been a fan of cleanup, has she licked up your ejaculate before? Did she exhibit any issues or soft stool?
I would think it an unlikely concern, but kudos for considering it.
She did lick some a few times. It never seemed to be an issue.
[removed]
[removed]
Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think that?
You don't think sexual attraction outside ones own species is abnormal? Just by the statistical definition alone it's abnormal.
Beyond that there is the fact that zoophiles are sexualizing beings that are incapable of truly informed consent. Not to mention that it is an inherently selfish act, zoophiles are willing to engage with creatures that cannot meaningfully communicate an opinion for the satisfaction of their own base desires.
Abnormal does not inherently mean wrong. My attraction is abnormal, and I have suffered greatly because of it... But after years of self-doubt I have come to the conclusion that it is not as bad as people make it out to be.
I appreciate the articulate response beyond the usual "you should kill yourself". I understand your position and I'm not even disagreeing with you, for the most part. No, animals can't give truly informed consent. They can't communicate their desires and thoughts with the eloquence of human language. However, I believe animals and especially domestic animals still can communicate. They have needs and wants and they communicate these things with us.
I know you must not think very highly of me and people like me, and you'll probably shake your head in disbelief at what I'm about to say, but I can assure you I always respected animals in my life. I have never forced or "trained" the animals I've been with intimately. My dog is happy and healthy. My friends say it, my family say it, the vet say it... People who are oblivious to our special relationship often comment on the bond we have. And of course, they would have a complete change of heart about that only if they knew we shared a bed. It makes no sense to me.
Is it selfish? Maybe. But so is pet ownership. And so is taking a life to eat when there are alternatives... I share something special with my dog. I share it with her. I know I'll never change your mind, but if I can only maybe plant the idea in your head that what we are doing behind closed doors isn't as bad as it first seems, I'd be a happy man.
[removed]
A fair number of our users have some rather sophisticated systems of communication, with at least one of our users' dogs actually having a specific gesture they came up with on their own to solicit it. That, and there are generally distinct breeding behaviors that you can read up on and identify within a species, and some novel ones that they may develop spontaneously.
I don't buy it, these communicative gestures could easily be trained "tricks" to ease the guilt of the owner, lest we forget the master is the primary care giver they feed , bathe and walk the dog the master is their entire life. The dog will do anything their master wants.
We were assured they were not trained, but I suppose it's a possibility. Still, them using the gestures on their own means they most likely know what happens when they do it, after a while. They wouldn't autonomously do it if the outcome was unsavory. Negative reinforcement is negative reinforcement.
They possibly would if they wanted to please their master ,who is their whole life.
Also how do we know they might well be fed treats or some other pleasurable experience after the fact which would ingrain a reward chain in their brain
Replying to this here to keep things consistent. Recorded does not equate to the number of instances observed. Field researchers only have so much coverage, and there are many more instances of exposure where it isn't or can't be recorded with some kind of media.
If they can please their caretakers in the same capacity through different ways that cause less harm, in the event that it actually does cause harm, then it would make sense that they would still avoid it in favor of other tricks and such.
Not necessary. They have the same pleasure circuit that lights up during sex as humans do (of course it's not the same same but it's functionally the same). Most if not all mammals seem to have it so it reinforces itself.
But my problem is all of this, is it's guesswork ,educated guesswork maybe but there are no definites here, you can cite studies and articles but they, nor you, know for sure that these animals are willing. Maybe some signs are there ,maybe they are being misconstrued, but there are no assurances. You surely agree with that?
Enthusiastic consent is a rather distinct indicator that they are willing, especially if it's reasonable to expect that they know the circumstances.
I'd say the subtler points of consent from nonhuman animals does have a certain possibility for error, but the same is also present in some human-human sexual dynamics, with even more layers(though I can't attest to the frequency of the following). False enjoyment/faked orgasms, verbal consent when they don't actually want it or because they feel obligated, consenting after being 'convinced', etc. All things that can muddy the waters for humans as well. Nonhuman animals generally don't have so strong a concept of emotional deception, so it's not too hard to get a read on them during the act as well, if need be. That's why looking for continuous consent is important, though.
I'll say, too, that a human partner would be more attentive to and able to detect consent continuously more effectively than a nonhuman animal alternate
It isn't possible for an animal to give consent, pure and simple, you can try and read the signs, but you can't know for sure. They only know the circumstances because it's a learned interaction, it's the same with kids who have been abused/raped at an early age many show overtly sexual tendancies because they only know it as normal.
Saying it like this proves nothing.
''Everything you said is not true. Pure and simple.''
WELL BOYS LOOKS LIKE I GOT THIS ONE! Lmao mate, you even failed to dissapoint me of how common this is.
That makes no sense, why can't you be sure?
So an animal consenting with another animal must be rape too, then?
Your mistake was obvious: They are not humans so they cannot be compared to them.
Human young and adult animals are not to be compared since these animals are adults.
They are sexually mature, and that disproves your argument that it's a learned thing, because it isn't.
You can't just negate something because it doesn't abide by your beliefs , I think because dogs cannot communicate concisely they cannot give consent ,signals are not consent ,just because they do not bite you is not consent, give me a situation how they can give consent ,anything so far has been purely, I can tell this because she rolled over, i learned to spot that she barks when I do this, that is not concise consent, that is people assuming consent.(and most likely because they want to see it)
I have seen two dogs rutting a lot of times and yes mostly it is rape ive seen my bitch being chased, bitten and pulled to the ground by a dog and it looks like rape to me.(why do you think dogs lock ,evolutions way of making sure they have more pups)
So dogs can be trained into their elder years ,in the same way ,can adult humans usually? I use this analogy because it seem to be the most fitting. adult dogs can be trained into thinking something is normal or everyday just like a child can ( remember children and dogs share the whole unconditional love thing with their master/superior) ,where it is very difficult to do so with an adult human because they know when someone is trying to trick or "train" them . Lest not forget 12,13 and 14 years (and younger)can be sexually mature ,does that mean they are fair game? It doesn't mean they can't be tricked by emotional blackmail etc unlike most older people.
[deleted]
They most certainly can. In fact, it's easier to read animals than humans.
Animals are more direct and if you study them, you know exactly what their behavior means.
They do indeed communicate. Are you one of those humans who pet a growling dog? I bet you know exactly what that means.
The exact way they give consent to their own species for sex, their mating rituals.
There's many different mating rituals they have and can even have unique ways of showing it.
The most basic thing for male dogs is when they purposely try to mount you. Before you start this bullshit that they do it because of dominance, they wouldn't stick a dick in your ass if that was true.
For females, it's flagging. Very simple, lifting her tail, exposing her vagina and directing it towards you.
These are probably one of the most obvious and basic ones, for dogs, at least.
No, that is YOU assuming this. I've never seen a zoophile say any of that is consent.
Again, their language holds a meaning. If you don't understand it, doesn't mean others don't either.
That is obvious rape. But do note that not every time they have sex it's rape.
I've got my own girl who was very uncomfortable around males in heat. She knew I'd protect her and went to me.
Also, that's anecdotal evidence. Most of the time it's not rape, it'd really be an issue if it was.
...And it has nothing to do with rape.
It just makes sure it's successful. Before you say anything: Nature isn't flawless.
Again, rape does not always occur.
That's not the point. Adult animals are aware of what sex is, otherwise they'd never have sex nor would they be sexually mature.
They are still not to be compared.
You have to realize that they are still in fact sexually mature. This means they already knew what sex is and have sexual urges. Training is not necessary in any way. You're also assuming a lot here.
I find it to be a bit too questionable, at least. There's a reason age of consent exists, and that's because there's a fit age they'll surely be sexually mature enough and will not be really affected by it. When you're young these things can quite affect you, I'd say as long as you're sexually mature and 16ish it seems about right.
''Most'' older people?
Oh, so there's a chance for that to happen? Let me just use your logic: IN THAT CASE EVERYTHING IS RAPE OMGGG111!!!!ELEVEN1!!!1!!!
I said most because I was adding people with intellectual disabilities etc
I have been at this all day and I am sick of thinking about it to be honest, but one last thing, you seem to think I assume everything I say, when you assume that the dog is into it ,because those cues you are seeing are just that, cues for your interpretation, with a human he or she can say no, dogs cannot, it doesn't matter if they show signs of consent from a book or article, no-one knows, because they are not a dog or never have been one , it doesn't matter how many signs are there ,a dog can surely live without you or anyone else putting their dick in them.
I would like to state that I have tried to be civil throughout, even though I find this practice abhorrent,I have tried to listen to your and the the first commenters argument (whom I appreciate was very thorough) with thought and an open mind, and have tried my best to get my point across even with the obstacle of being on mobile and having to look after my kids etc , I would hope i would have been more concise and professional if I was able ,but alas I was not .though my aim was not to necessarily to convert anyone ,more to understand how anyone could think this was okay I have to say nothing has convinced me in any way to change my opinion on this matter ,but I appreciate the fact I was not deleted,ridiculed or censored for my opinion.
Sorry, but you are the dumbest human I have ever seen. Note that I'm a very big misanthrope and never get surprised by what they say but this is so far yet the DUMBEST argument I have ever heard and I'm still surprised by the stupid shit humans can come up with. With your same logic, you can't know if humans consent either.
Sure, you're the same species but you can't know what they exactly know. Who knows you're the only human who thinks like this or who can truly consent? Same dumbass logic.
And might I remind you that we do know what animals mean? You know what a dog means when they growl and bark at you. You know what they mean when they put their head under your arm. You know what they mean when they yawn.
You do realize there's reason behind all of this? They do this shit for a reason.
Just because you can't read their minds exactly doesn't mean you don't know anything at all.
Who knows, maybe animals prefer dying instead of being in your house? Again, same logic.
Also, dogs CAN say no and yes. They also have a language.
If you try to pet them and they resist by putting their head away, tell me what that means. Tell me right now if you can.
If that is a ''no'' in your book then you proved just my points. If that's anything else in your book then you are clearly delusional.
To be honest, I still can't believe you said such a dumb thing. I have a feeling that this wasn't genuine and that this was a last resort wimp-out excuse.
So can humans. Then humans shouldn't have sex, end of story. Same logic.
Also, I don't. But I do put my tongue and finger up there. She likes it and I actually do too, and that's all that matters.
No humans needs to make up pointless rules to be against our kind of love because nothing is being done wrong. She even FORCED me to have sex with her.
I tried to sleep once, but she kept putting her vagina in my face. Sure buddy, that's not consent, that's just me assuming it's consent.
She's clearly trying to tell me she wants to take a walk. I got a tear in my eye...
This was obvious.
You are just like the others, opinionated and afraid to change your opinion. Typical human behavior.
But whatever, you didn't even get close to convincing me because I heard the same shit before, except that dumb shit you said.
So yeah, I'm going to bed now. My girl really showed some interest in having sex. The closer I reached for her vagina, the more she licked and nibbled me. Oh what could she mean? She was obviously resisting and trained! /s
Well you are are exactly what I expected from this sub(and gladly surprised to not find .......until now) someone who resorts to slurs and demeaning behaviour ,I'm saddened as u/amorebestia engaged me in fact and although my opinion was not changed I appreciated that he didn't stoop to that kind of behaviour to get his point across and did so wisely and somewhat ( in my opinion) factually ,because of this i thought of the community as intelligent and considerate of others opinion,of which I at least tried to be also , but obviously that is marred now with cheap name calling.
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.
[removed]
:) :) slightly ironic
Sorry about him. Some of the people here struggle a great deal in their day to day lives, often from fear mixed with a tinge of hopelessness. Many of the people here have tried advancing discussions like these numerous times in the past, but they give up on the prospect after a while and, sometimes that means they start using these opportunities to vent. Zoophilia is an attraction, like homosexuality, that can completely override what you might consider normal sexuality, so aside from being inescapable, when you hear things like nonhuman animal partner, it has the same gravity for them as a girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse would. It can be understandably upsetting for some people here when portions of their relationships are perceived as being attacked.
I agree wholeheartedly that zoophilia is an attraction, I understand that completely, just as pedophilia, Objectophilia and so on are also, my issue is consent. I could have come here just like many did and threaten and ridicule instead of at least try to understand, people like him are not doing the community any favours, assuming a goal is for other people to be more understanding.
There's a limit to what I can accept, but the reason you told me we can't know their language is so ridiculous that I think you should seriously not be able to operate a computer.
I seriously hope for you that you don't take care of animals in your life, because you said it yourself their language doesn't mean shit.
All you are doing is stifling interest and opinion with taunts,if you do that all you are going to get is "uh you dirty dog fuckers should die" etc. you might not care about people being more open to your sexual persuasion, but i would think most of this community is.
I don't, and no that isn't true. We get those remarks either way.
And honestly, I don't really care. It's a loss to them.
They are the ones that don't feel happy about it, but we do.
If they say they are, they are lying. I constantly hear how it doesn't really matter what others think.
And that's true, we don't owe you any answer. We will just happily continue do what you all call wrong.
But hey, it seems like you're trying to play the victim here. I wanted to continue, but you can't handle a few words on the internet. Aren't you an adult?
Oh, so maybe that is why you think we care, because you think words hurt others. Again, we don't care. We can move on with our lives and accept that everything we do isn't wrong.
You have to realize you are opinionated with your current opinions.
Your reason is: ''We don't know what animals truly mean because we aren't animals.''
In that case, you are not to be convinced because you just straight up deny that truth. If you hold that opinion, there's literally nothing we can do to convince you, so you're nothing but useless here.
We can come up with any argument and you'll just say: ''We don't know what the animals mean because you aren't one.'' Whoop argument destroyed!
No buddy... that's really not how it works. Because again: You're not other humans either.
Look look! Humans can't consent because you don't know how others think! Again: same logic is used.
And I don't get how I insult you in any way. Is it because I wish you don't have any animals?
That is genuine. I hope that you never have any animals because you'd get them killed.
Why? You say you don't know what they truly mean, so you can't respond to their language.
In that case, you don't know if your animal is hungry, thirsty, wants to play, wants to take a walk, is hurt, etc.
You'd get them killed in no-time, or at least they'd be extremely unhappy.
Unless... You'd admit that animals do have clear ways and signs of showing what they want and have their own clear language. But oh, then you'd also be proving my point. You wouldn't want that, now would you?
I've already gave you my arguments and you started ignoring them. If you think the community will be happy with you, think again.
I've seen humans like you before, who straight up deny the truth or in the end make an excuse.
And guess what? This community does not take that very kindly. The last one who was like this started acting just like you. ''Oh! I'm being attacked! You'll never get people to respect you!''
I am happy you don't care about these remarks ,but I'm sure others do, I don't understand why you wouldn't want people to truly accept your persuasion, I would think plenty do and for that to happen, people outside of the community need to be informed and yes you and the other commenter have tried to do that, but at the same time I'm am not going to take your word as law ,just like I wouldn't expect you to take mine, which means engagement in a debate, but cheap name calling etc weakens your argument at the very least by making me not want to engage in debate with you, if you truly think I am dumb etc, don't engage me, I don't care about what you say in that regard it doesn't hurt me in anyway ,but I feel it stifles debate (just like someone saying "dirty dog fuckers ...." Also adds nothing) in something I was truly interested in.
You are completely correct, you owe me no answers, so don't answer me, if thats the way you feel. If you remember you replied to a question I asked someone else.
"We don't know what animals truly mean because we aren't animals.'' Is an opinion, my opinion, I was looking for something to challenge it and possibly change it, but so far I have mostly been given opinions back ,I have had no citations that could change my view ,or at least give me something to think about even.
I have the aforementioned opinion because I believe animals,of course, have limited communication for basic things which you mentioned hungry, angry etc but I don't believe they have the thought processes to convey consent. No I am not other Humans but they can literally say "no, don't do that" Which is as concise as can be, an animal cannot be that concise, instead we have to read body language and interpret it, which is in itself an assumption of what we, humans, believe to be correct.
Any arguments I have ignored is not because I'm scared of them it's more a matter of time ,I haven't got enough time (I have kids to look after and I'm on a phone) to go through every argument (or format properly) so I have tried to respond to the ones that seem more important to the debate.
I don't mind if this community hates me, I am not a part of it, but as you are,I would assume you would like to see it grow and be accepting of people's questions, guess not.
As I already said, in the past they have told me they don't care.
I'm repeating the same shit here. We can move on with our lives and words don't hurt us.
Because we can continue with our lives. What you think is actually quite worthless.
Tell me, what changes if we get others on our side? Nothing? Impressive.
Indeed I don't, but that won't stop me.
Of course we haven't change your mind if you hold that opinion. Think about it.
You hold this opinion because we aren't animals. That's where this ends: It can't go any further.
We can give you all the evidence in the world, but you will deny it because we aren't animals.
Trust me, no one will like you here if you act like that. Why? There's no place for humans like you.
What's the point in arguing with you in this case if we can under no circumstance change your mind?
Right, if you think when animals are ''hungry, angry, etc.'' that's just what you think too.
You aren't an animal: You can't prove this. Argument debunked. Try again.
See? Dumb logic.
You still don't make any sense. They understand what sex is.
They are sexually mature adult animals who have sex and they have a way of showing it to their own species.
Otherwise, any kind of sex they always have is rape and for that reason it's wrong. Your logic truly is flawless... lmao.
I've got my own problems in life. I'm not sure why I would worry about the opinions of others.
I don't even understand why anyone would like to see it grow. I'd rather change the opinions of other zoophiles, because they can have some fucked up ethics and such.
If I changed their mind, a change would be made: They wouldn't harm an animal any more.
If I changed your mind, no change would be made.
Then why reply
Oh look, typical anti-zoo behavior. Ignore my arguments, but respond to the most useless part of my comment.
Typical.
Why should I answer that question if you don't respond either?
I'm not like you in any way, so I actually have an answer. Why not?
I have nothing really better to do and I love beating others in arguments.
Simple, really.
Okay Princess xx
Stop, your comment triggered ASMR.
Glad I could get you going.
Then we can assume that every instance of mating in the wild is rape, since even they can only try to read the signs, and have a smaller brain to do it with. Worse yet, female dogs use chemicals to arouse dogs around them to an extreme degree.
And again, avoidance behavior and lack of interest. Sometimes a zoo's nonhuman animal partner just isn't feeling it, and it shows. They have to be 'in the mood' the same as anything else, and that is especially true for females. Female nonhuman animals can't fake arousal or orgasm.
And what of when a male nonhuman animal mounts a human on their own, for the first time? It would seem that what they want in a case like that is hard to confuse with anything else, especially considering that the lack of pheromones means that nonhuman animals can approach the issue of their own volition rather than by the demands of their body.
Thing is, they tend not to behave more sexual outside of the bedroom. In fact, they become markedly less sexual outside of the bedroom. Note that stimulating them to orgasm does have a similar effect as in humans on their hormones as well, which will prevent any instances of sexual frustration in dogs.
Since the topic seems to be breached rather frequently nowadays, I have a question for you. In the case of nonhuman animals, where trophy hunting is acceptable, killing and harvesting nonhuman animals for meat is the norm, and nonhuman animal husbandry and insemination is out of the control of the nonhuman animals themselves -- when we need neither meat with the advent of supplements, and need no more dogs due to the surplus of them as it is... why are those behaviors accepted, but not this, when it offers that choice and has little to no potential for trauma compared to the other options?
Firstly apologies for the delay in a reply and also I am busy so I'm not going to be as concise as I'd like, I feel it's difficult to compare a human relationship with an animal one, humans are much more advanced and inteligent that animals, with animals it comes down to a basic primal instinct, something in them to procreate to further their breed, don't get me wrong this is also present in humans,yet I think humans have learned to ignore it somewhat, humans have sex for fun, maybe it's a myth ,but with the exception of dolphins,animals do not,I'm not saying animals don't enjoy it when it happening ,but all these biological events happen just so they can create new life, dogs for example as previously said the bitch will release chemicals to attract a partner when in heat , this is (basically) the only time they can actually have intercourse, and evolution has added this to make sure they conceive, they will want it at this time too because evolution wants them to procreate, not because Fido is looking particularly hot today, because their hormones demand it. I feel most intercourse in the animal kingdom is technically rape (when compared to a human relationship) I don't deny the animals possibly enjoy it when it has begun though, but here lies the problem, a human,who has a much greater intellect and can process complex emotions and desires has a power over an animal with much less intellect ,the dog ,for example possibly doesn't really know what's happening ,they are just getting a nice feeling, where the zoo does. It seems to me to be akin to someone having sex with a child , someone of way lesser intellect anyway , the receiving human may well enjoy the feeling but cannot grasp the fact that if they had a higher intellect hey could form their own opinions on it and maybe not want it to happen.
Male nonhuman mounting a human of their own volition, is this not a power thing trying to topple the apha,maybe not I always kind of assumed that is was less of a sex thing and more of a power thing.
The next point i can only take your word for, but I was trying to point out the normalisation of sex that would occur in this situation.
The answer to your question is a simple one all the things you mentioned should not be the norm and not be accepted.
I'd say every relationship is difficult to compare; even two sides of the same relationship. That's more of an aside, of course. I disagree that it's just instinct, though. Instinct precludes preference, yet nonhuman animals can form rather strong preferences to individuals, even when we don't have reason to believe that they're monogamous on a genetic level.
This is a bit difficult for people to approach because, dolphins, various new and old world monkeys, and humans, all have 'sex for fun' but also are all receptive year round.
They happen for no reason -- nature doesn't make plans... It just works, or it doesn't.
But the male remains fertile year-long, and the females, not unlike human women, do have a baseline amount of receptiveness even when they aren't fertile. Domestic dogs actually do mount and accept being mounted even outside of heat.
Again, nature isn't a planner. It's not a huge deal but it's a bit of e pet peeve for me as a geneticist.
Attractiveness plays a role, heat forces them into it.
I suppose it depends on your definition of rape. Females in heat, even female dogs, will be rather choosy about their suitors, like most females are. Either they both go into it willingly, or they do it fighting.
Alright, how about a horse? Even with a lead, or god forbid restraints, you're dealing with a nonhuman animal that's stronger, faster, has better range of vision, more refined hearing, and is able to rupture your insides with a single kick, but would be more than content with stomping you to death if they're out for blood. At that point, intellect doesn't matter, but they aren't lacking in that either. There's a point, you see, where mental faculties cease to offer one power, and that's one of those cases.
They also can and do masturbate without 'understanding' what's happening(meaning they have the intelligence to understand that it's the contact itself and not their caretaker/mate/pillow causing th pleasurable sensation). That's the extent of what is really to be understood when you're dealing with an interspecies sexual partnership. Because... what else is there to know? You can't have kids, you can't get diseases from one another, and you can expect that nobody will be getting hurt either.
Tying back to the beginning, there is preference here(moreso in females but it's there either way). Sometimes they're just not into the zoophile in question and regardless of whether it feels good, they won't want it. A child wouldn't necessarily make that distinction, but even an adult with severe mental deficiency may have those preferences.
That's a myth that was propagated as a result of a study that forced random wolves to cohabitate in close proximity, when the typical wolf pack is configured more like a nuclear family. The current understanding is that the young will follow their parents or elders, not the dominant ones. That is not to say that there aren't more dominant and submissive individuals in either species, but leadership =/= dominance.
Since dogs are the go-to example... a dog, male or female, will mount just about anything if they want that satisfaction. It's possible that their gender preferences are significantly weaker than in humans, given the frequency of homosexual mating events.
It may appear so, relative to the chaste environment that captive raised pets are normally held in. The point you raised is why zoophiles wait 2-3 years with dogs before doing the do, though. At that point, their libido is more or less established. It's only really an issue, same as with human children, when they're doing it way too often way too early.
That said, though... Dogs have ridiculously high libidos by default due to breeders wanting to create as many dogs in as short a time as possible. Shitty, but it happens. In many ways, a caretaker creating that outlet for their dogs in one way or another structures their sexuality and ensures that they aren't humping couches, pillows, and sweaters, aren't masturbating in the living room, etc. Dogs have an extremely strong need for structure and routines as well (a lack thereof is where you get an insecure and paranoid dog), so who knows? Maybe they prefer it. As I've heard, dogs seem to prefer sex being exclusive to certain areas or rooms, so it fits somewhat, if nothing else.
While I won't go into the should's and should not's, I will say that nonhuman animals reap many similar benefits from sex and masturbation as humans do. It can strengthen bonds, boosts immune and cardiovascular health, and decreases stress related health effects. Given the prominence of prostate cancer in male dogs(see shady breeding practices from above), it also helps with that like it does in humans. Masturbation has similar effects, but sex has significantly amplified benefits.
A lot to think about, thanks for your reply
Likewise. It happens all too often that people stop listening in favor of indulging their own fervor when discussing this topic, so someone that stays reasonable in conversation is a welcome reprieve from the usual, especially after jesuschristreddit and drama started spamming the sub up.
Glad to hear I'm welcome
Pardon the long reply, I wanted to be as scrupulous as possible with my response since you seem to be a bit more reasonable than most of the people from /r/publichealthadvocacy and that lends it to being a bit lengthy.
In a circumstance where interspecies cohabitation is the norm, not particularly. Modes of attraction, as with most behavioral phenomena, aren't precise. It mucks up the process of evolution when there's precise and inflexible 'rules' defined with genetics.
As an example, there's the baby schema. It's a blueprint of sorts that makes babies cute and makes you want to care for them preferentially... But it really only defines a few things: small body, big head, big eyes, soft features. The baby schema helps make kittens and puppies cute too, and some full grown animals as well (hence why pets are so popular and even confer similar benefits that children can offer). That said, the baby schema does vary in intensity. It's possibly why wolves are sometimes known to adopt abandoned human children as well, but that's just what animal behaviorists have speculated. With a society you can reinforce against the baby schema as well, of course. You could cause kittens, puppies, and even babies to inspire fear in those around them rather than thoughts of cuteness, because it's rather easily overriden, as with many instincts.
Point is, genetics creates arbitrary and loose rules with regards to behavior, 1. Because it's adaptive in the end if an animal has offspring that don't match a precise schema but raises them anyway, and 2. Because precise behavioral traits and instincts are extremely expensive on a genetic timescale, and more likely to cause species collapse than anything when mutations and natural selection fundamentally change members of the species. Better to use simple stimuli responses or imprinting and let there be an outward margin of error than inward. Things like sexual and social imprinting are particularly effective, wherein the bulk of their behaviors are learned, including sexual attraction. It lets us be a touch more precise while still being evolutionarily inexpensive and is pretty much always adaptive. Perhaps not so much for zoophiles if you consider that they don't have kds, but not wanting kids is far from abnormal in this day and age.
Here's a quote from wikipedia since I'm lazy, outlining an example of sexual imprinting at work:
"Sexual attraction to humans can develop in non-human mammals or birds as a result of sexual imprinting when reared from young by humans. One example is London Zoo female giant panda Chi Chi. When taken to Moscow Zoo for mating with the male giant panda An An, she refused his attempts to mate with her, but made a full sexual self-presentation to a zookeeper."
Our stats on it are bunk, honestly. The frequency is determined by surveys, and most people wouldn't be comfortable divulging that information, even with the promise of anonymity. There's also issues of partial zoophiles that may not realize they're zoos for one reason or another or even rationalize against the presence of said attractions (better to ignore it, just a phase, etc etc). I'd hazard a guess and say that it isn't particularly frequent, but it's likely too common in its various incarnations, in actuality, to be considered abnormal. Even in the event that it is abnormal and, statistically speaking, a disorder, that doesn't make it bad. It's a common misconception that disorders are bad or need to be treated, but most are benign or even beneficial on occasion.
This is arguably true, but as a preface for my response, the same can be said about sex outside of humans in general. Dogs, horses, etc, can't be expected to know the things humans are expected to know when engaging with one another, and they can have offspring because of it, as well as contracting no small number of STIs between themselves. Informed consent is important to prevent undue trauma, unwanted pregnancy, and the spread of STIs predominantly. The latter two aren't relevant here as sexually transmitted zoonoses are extremely rare and there exist near insurmountable prezygotic barriers for hybridized offspring being conceived. The former point is more suited to individuals where the implications of sexual contact can be negative or harmful rather than actual harm. Zoophiles as a rule of thumb are going to be caring enough that there won't be physical trauma caused to their partner in any capacity, and respect their agency such that they have the freedom to continue or stop as they please. Consent on its own is sufficient if we are to act on consideration of the nonhuman animal, and of the grearly reduced risks of such contact. There are exceptions of course, but those exceptions usually exist outside of this community.
A case could be made for romantic zoophiles, since we have yet to observe behavior in dogs and many other chordates that could be quantified as romance, with the exception of a few avian species. That said, those zoos are aware of and account for the disparity. As an aside, romance like phenomena in nonhuman animals is one of the things I've grown interested in seeing honest-to-god studies on, given the implications.
How so? There are rather clear ways that they can communicate enjoyment or dissatisfaction(ie a dog wagging their tail or smiling, vs whining or using avoidance behavior, or even just showing disinterest) that would also be observable with everyday interactions. It usually just amounts to actually knowing how they communicate and execute their mating behavior.
There are also users here that have sexual contact with their partners who don't, or can't, have penetrative sex. In those cases, the human in the relationship may derive significantly less pleasure from the act than their partner, as they may only be able to engage sexually with them using digital or oral stimulation that is rarely reciprocated.
I'll concede that there may be a lack of precision with a nonhuman's parsable communication, but I can't think of any instances where precise communication can't be supplemented with intuition and investigation on the part of a zoo.
[removed]
It didn't.
Read the rules of the subreddit you're posting to next time.
Intuition and investigation that is clouded by desire, the rapist will see that wag of a tail as a green light irrespective of its actual intentions and moreover they could also refuse to notice any signs of reluctance.
Just this year, there was a monkey recorded having sex with deer, and a fair number of them appeared to behave consensually as I understand.
There are a much, much larger number of cases where captive born nonhuman animals have exhibited attraction to human caretakers, due to what is suspected to be sexual imprinting. Though, that doesn't always seem to be the case. I've heard of wild deer and even sea turtles trying to do the deed with humans as well.
Recall that evolution doesn't need to be strict, it just needs to work. If interspecies, homosexual, masturbatory, etc. sexual behavior occurs every once in a while, it may not be harmful at all and could even decrease mate competition and the violence that ensues with it. There is the possibility that such behavior could help slow reproduction enough to prevent or delay overpopulation as well. It is also possible that certain beneficial traits simply interact on occasion to create such behaviors, and the behaviors themselves are either not harmful to their reproductive success, or don't negatively affect it enough to select against those traits.
You don't suddenly become insensate during sex. If the nonhuman animal experiences discomfort, they'll make noticeable expressions. The users here are advised to take weeks, months, or even years to work up to the point of sexual contact for the exact reason of them needing to understand more than just what their tail wagging means, and what nonhuman animal behavior guides tell them. The scenario that every user is encouraged to strive for is the one where both parties get the most enjoyment from it.
I deleted my first comment because it didn't bring my point across as eloquently as I would like, the problem is humans are somewhat civilised beings that don't tend to give into primal desires easily, where most of the animal kingdom is a slave to such urges , we are not, wether that is a byproduct of fitting into society or otherwise is irrelevant, we can control urges where animals cannot, just because you want to rape a dog doesn't mean you should, they come into season for a reason , to procreate not so you can get your jollies from a animal you think is consenting but put simply no-one will ever know, you can take cues and read guides, but as said previously that's not a definite and never will be , the human will obviously have their own agenda. I personally wouldn't be able to have sex with something without knowing for sure it is consensual and not just because it's available, which I'll be honest is what this seems like to me , an available sexual toy for the humans pleasure.
Depends on the person, and if we can actually reliably see when humans are influenced by their own urges.
I disagree. Self restraint is often learned -- and nonhuman animals can be very, very good at it.
This is an appeal to nature. While it stimulates procreation at an opportune time, that doesn't mean it is the only good solution, especially for a nonhuman animal that won't have offspring.
This is assuming that every instance of zoophilia exhibits a power dynamic where the human is in complete control. Females pairing with male nonhuman animals or males pairing with male animals can represent the opposite during sexual contact, and there have been some examples, which I won't go into detail on, where females would somewhat forcibly approach their human partners/caretakers.
Ignoring that point though, continuous consent still applies. If there is a chance miscommunication, there will be aversive behavior shown rather immediately and that's a sign to stop. Enthusiastic consent is a good threshold in later interactions, for various reasons.
I'm not sure what you mean here. The people here, when they actually do have sexual contact, prioritize safety and making sure it's the best experience possible for both of them. They want to please the other, which is hardly an agenda as I see it.
We're at a disadvantage here because all of the discussions and drama surrounding this community as of late has been sexual. It is often the case that there is a romantic as well as sexual attraction by zoophiles to their nonhuman partners, and it adds up to rather stunning devotion, with sexual contact being anciliary but enriching where it applies.
And the article states it's only the second recorded incident of distant wild animals mating, not really that prevalent is it?
If it states that, it's wrong. I can think of more than two examples right off the top of my head.
Leopard Seals and Penguins
Eland and Ostrich, Monkey and Snake, Dog and Chicken, Chimp and Cat, cited from Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (part of the Kinsey Reports)
Otters and Seals
Thankyou I'm glad someone has cited something. Though with the second in particular, my issue is consent , I don't believe animals can give knowing consent, a few others here have stated that hardly any rape occurs in the animal world and I disagree I fell it is mostly rape in the animal world,wether interspecies or otherwise.
[deleted]
To add to my reply to this part, I'd like to clarify too, that there isn't sexualization happening. Nonhuman animals are, like humans, sexual creatures. It is both desired in individual capacities and needed on an evolutionary timescale.
[deleted]
Being homosexual is abnormal biologically too. Do they require mental treatment?
People eat and kill animals without their consent. I'd think they would prefer to be raped.
That argument could certainly be made considering that it is highly correlated with high rates of drug use, self destructive behaviors, promiscuity, and suicide.
Animals kill and eat animals without consent, what's your point? Even by your own logic your argument is stupid. Eating animals is bad so might as well rape them because that's better somehow?
[citation needed]
Also, those symptoms are probably mostly due to society's disapproval of homosexuality, not the orientation itself.
I think we can surely both agree that despite being abnormal, homosexuality should be accepted and drugs not encouraged as treatment.
Interspecific sexual intercourse also occurs.
My argument is that it is an example of double standards.
If you can murder certain species of animals, then why can you not rape? Why is murder not animal abuse, but rape is? This isn't even taking into account false imprisonment of animals without their consent, force feeding, mutilation, etc. Why is one allowed but not the other? It makes no sense. Meat is not a necessity. Murder of animals, like rape, is very selfish. But why is one selfish, abusive, violent and traumatising act not allowed and the others are? They should either all be legal or illegal, or all accepted or rejected by society. Ideally for me, all illegal and rejected, unless the animal is in control of the intercourse.
Rape is not the goal of any zoophile on here though I'm sure. It's just an argument that even in the worst case of bestiality (rape) you can argue that it should be allowed if murder is.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I don't know about dogs but they tested my nephew for allergies by scraping his arm then putting whatever it is they are testing for on the scrape. I guess you could do that, scrape the dog and rub your jizz on the scrape, if it looks irritated or inflamed then the dog is allergic. Maybe. Good luck with all that.
[removed]
I'm not all for fucking dogs and I'm only here because of a post in r/JesusChristReddit but...
You suggesting someone to not fuck an animal in a zoophilia subreddit is pretty useless imo
Or you could not shitpost. You know where you are.
[removed]
THANK YOU.
[removed]
This is not /r/drama. We have rules, and you didn't read them.
[removed]
And I need to bust down your posting privileges, it seems. Rule 7 and 8 are there for a reason. Feel free to read them on your way out.
This entire post breaks your 4th and your 5th rule though...
From the rules page: "Responsible and safe sex (at moderator discretion) is not considered abuse in this subreddit." If you'd like to discuss the moral and ethical concerns of the subject, I'd be willing to offer you my perspective.
And rule 5 is designated specifically for users that are requesting sex, asking to make love to someone else's dog, offering, etc.
sooooo as long as it's your own dog it's fine to rape it?
got it.
Rule four prohibits rape from a non-legal standpoint as well as general abuse, so no. As with all things, there's much more to it than you seemed to think at first.
It sure does. I feel bad for for welfare of these poor animals. These people are sick sadistic fucks who like to hurt animals for their own sexual pleasure
I mean I understand that some people have odd attractions and kinks they can't control, that's fine - to each his/her own.
What I cannot grasp is what the hell is going on in someone's brain that makes them think it's any way acceptable to have intercourse WITH THEIR FUCKING PET. I don't care what bullshit "science" they attempt to use to say the animal "accepts it" or whatever - its fucked, they aren't consenting - they are literally raping their pet.
It's okay to be attracted to something odd, you can't control certain things. BUT FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, CERTAIN THINGS LIKE PEDOPHILIA AND THIS SHIT IS NOT OKAY TO ACT ON, EVER!
It makes me sick to my stomach. My heart breaks for these animals
You have been banned from this subreddit for having morals and knowing how to control your desires
It's called "logical reasoning".
The difference between you and I seems to be that I'm actually confident my views are based in reality. I'm happy to argue these points, because I'm confident that reality is on my side (and, furthermore, if it isn't, I would want to be proven wrong, rather than forever being wrong). You, by your own admission, don't care about evidence, science, reasoning or arguments, and that is, I suspect, why you're talking with someone who already agrees with you rather than trying to convince those who do not.
I was simply responding, actually, as most people tend to do when a conversation is started. I realize you may not like what I said, but where the fuck is this "reality" bullshit coming from? You're spinning together a nicely worded little paragraph there, but at what point? You didn't defend anything, you simply went straight to "oh well I know I'm right and I have facts so you don't know what you're talking about".
What are you even talking about? Your entire point (whatever it may be) is vague and condescending, it's completely useless.
You were never involved in the conversation, you included yourself - and poorly at that. Not exactly the "go to" defensive maneuver I'd recommend over having sex with your pet - but as I said, to each his/her own I guess. Next time throw some links or something this way, forgive me for not wanting to research "why does this guy want to fuck his dog" on my own.
I was trying, and apparently failing, to provoke you into providing an actual argument.
Thus far, the extent of what you've said can be summed up as "I don't care about science, they don't consent, I don't understand the motivations."
The first is a non-starter, you failed to provide any argument or evidence for the second, and I'm not sure if you actually want an answer to the last. Though I'll answer it anyway, because why not.
The answer is that, at least for some people, it is their sexual orientation. Feel free to check out Hani Miletski's "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia" for a source on that, or ask me - I've actually given a presentation on this topic at one of the SSSS annual meetings: http://www.sexscience.org/dashboard/articleImages/2015%20AM%20FINAL%20Program.pdf (presentation title: Zoophilia as an emerging sexual identity), where I looked into precisely that topic.
Though this brings us again to where you said you don't care about science, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.
You obviously failed to notice the quotations on science, you really should read what I said and not attempt to be so easily offended just because someone thinks your sexual orientation is a little fucked - it's going to happen quite a bit, so I'd get used to it
I was saying "science", because there is no way in hell that a human being can have consensual sex with an animal - at least that we could prove. Quit attempting to make a sad attempt at twisting my words just because you took something out of context.
You could NOT prove that your dog would consensually let you have sex with it. Seriously - how the fuck could you prove that? Do you know what non-consensual sex is normally viewed as? Now do you see why most people would think it would be fucked - because they think you're raping your pet.
I'm not saying that - again, I think it's fucked up - but I'm not going to ignore the fact that you can't control your desires, however off-putting they may be. I'm sorry I can't see it differently, but certainly you can understand I can't help but feel a certain way.
Well first off, let's nip this in the bud right away: I'm in my upper twenties and I've never had sex, despite having some opportunities. So don't claim I "can't control my desires". The issue has literally nothing to do with controlling desires. A fair number of people on this board have, like me, never had sex.
As to this point:
"Let you have sex with it"? A male dog mounting and penetrating someone is not a passive act on the dog's end. They are not "letting you have sex with them", they are "actively having sex with you".
You might try to argue that their consent in such a situation is invalid - that's the way that this argument usually goes (I should know, I've had it a lot). But to argue that taking the active role as an initiator isn't an expression of consent to the act is, honestly, quite out there.
When I say all of this, don't take it directly. Meaning I'm not saying all of this TO you specifically, more so as I'm seeing you as basically a representative of some kind. Although now that's completely different after your explanation. Thanks for a little background, I appreciate it.
It is the consensual thing that bothers me the most, and I have a really difficult time seeing it otherwise. Again, I'm sure you understand.
As for the next part..... Woaaaaah alright backpedal for me if you don't mind here. Again, please do not make me google this, I'll take your word.
Are you legitimately telling me that actually happens? Like a male dog and a human woman?
I understand, and I actually agree and consider consent very important.
Yes? It does happen. Sexual relations with nonhuman animals is more rare among females than it is among males (Usually, about half as common). For instance, the Kinsey Reports suggest that the rate at which males have had some sort of sexual contact with an animal is about 8% of the male population, while for females it is about 4%. Later studies have had lower overall numbers - 4% for males, 2% for females - which is still probably a higher percentage of the population than you might have thought. That said, that covers all sexual activity resulting in orgasm, not just vaginal intercourse, and also includes behaviors that could, would, and should rightfully be classed as abusive. Just trying ti give you the best picture I can of the statistics as I understand them.
There are female zoophiles on this board who could probably attest to their own actions with male dogs - though I would ask you to be very careful about asking anything in that vein, since female zoophiles are often harassed by males who fetishize them, asking for pictures or treating them poorly, which is really quite unfortunate.
Huh, well, TIL I guess. Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain this to me from the other side. Especially the statistics, and I do appreciate you mentioning all forms of sexual activity as well - bad included.
I'll avoid harassing them, I'm sure they have enough of it on their plates as is.
Again, I can't say I understand or fully agree to any of this - but at least I have somewhat of a better understanding on it. Thanks for your time, and I sincerely wish you a good life. Good luck with all of this, and I mean that, not trying to be condescending or anything.
Thank you. If you ever have any other questions, I can try to help. As I said, I did do some interviews and gave a presentation at a conference on this general subject.
I appreciate your open-mindedness, actually, and on that note, I apologize for my hostile attitude towards the start. I shouldn't have acted that way. Just so you understand, though, recognize that I reasonably frequently have to deal with people suggesting that I am mentally ill, fundamentally broken, a sick disgusting monster whom they would gleefully watch suffer and burn in hell for eternity... It can lead me to expect the worst of people, even when that's not fair. So again, I just wanted to apologize about that.
[deleted]
[removed]
[removed]
Can't defend breaking rule 7 though.
Kys
[deleted]
This whole fucking subreddit breaks it's own rule #4. Stop abusing your poor animals you sick assholes.
ya'll need jesus
[deleted]
Wouldn't you want to lose your virginity to an actual human? I'm not into animals so I'm probably biased but if you've never had sex that does seem like the best place to start.
They're probably an exclusive zoophile; that is to say, they aren't attracted to humans
[removed]