Hypocritical much? (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-09-27 13:59:54 by Tastypaws Taken by Toby!
I have a friend, we'll call her Sara, who knows about Me and Toby's relationship. She's one of the people who say animals can't consent to sex, yet she's fine with romantic relationships with animals, so obviously I told her that our relationship is only romantic when she found out. She even suggested getting Toby registered as an emotional support dog so he can come to college with me. What do you guys think of this mindset, thinking that animals can consent to romantic relationships but not sexual ones? It seems blatantly hypocritical to me.
It's not necessarily hypocritical, just ignorant or in denial. Many people are in denial about the fact that their 'fur babies' (yes, many people actually view their adult dogs/cats as their children, and even delude themselves further into believing they're like children by refusing to acknowledge the fact that they have sexuality or anything that isn't child-like, this has always baffled me) would actually have a libido. Possibly greater than theirs if not for the fact that they lopped off their sexual organs before puberty and any sexual contact and/or screamed at them for displaying any form of sexuality.
Which is idiotic when you research sexuality in children, children can be sexual...otherwise they wouldn't masturbate or sexually experiment with each other. Children just don't have a grasp on what sexuality is yet until they are educated about it. I think it's more about cognition and the lack thereof that people associate the most with not being able to consent, but I do wonder from a scientific standpoint, if the lack of cognition in children is only viewed as a deficit simply because most of western society says that children should only be taught about sexuality around the age of puberty and purposely shy away from talking about other concepts that are considered too difficult/adult to understand. I wonder about this because it is very clear to me that children can understand complicated concepts such as transgender, death, morality, gay, lesbian, etc. (what westerners consider to be "adult concepts") and the fact that in many native villages in Africa, South America, etc. don't really have separate activities for children. The children do the hunting, the cooking, the defending, etc. just like the adults....yet western children are seen as untrustworthy and mentally stunted in this regard.
When people compare animals to children, what they are really comparing them to are children too young to speak, to voice an opinion, to understand any concept whatsoever. Toddlers and babies, basically. Which is even further from the truth than comparing them to older children. And honestly, how do we even know animals can't understand concepts? I mean, if we could invent a device that translated human language into animal language and vice versa, how hard would it really be to bump up the cognition of an animal just by having fluent conversations with them? We won't ever truly know until such a device is invented. We can only make guesses through experiments that are tailored for human cognisance.
As much as a loathe the comparison, I think the point is not just the level of cognition, but also the fact that animals are, in essence, family members which one adopts.
Being on the topic of hypocrisy, I've seen more than one zoophile use the phrase "your sister" or "your brother" when describing one animal in the family to another verbally. And a non-small number of people will often use a cadence or tone of speech that would be considered inappropriate for fellow adult humans... so I think there is an element of neurochemistry that does make humans see pets as children, in some sense.
On the other hand, it may just be "see pets as loved dependents" which gets turned into children because it's the most applicable item in the frame of reference... sort of like the argument of whether everything tastes like chicken or whether chicken tastes like everything.
I don't think she's being hypocritical, not intendedly at least. She just doesn't know what she's talking about and goes with the common thinking, as it's the easier way.If you can, ask her if she got any argument about the subject, because she probably doesn't (or just bad ones), if that's the case it will be easier to convince her with your good arguments.
Talk about Toby's body language when he's horny, how it's completely the opposite of a frightened or abused dog. Talk about your love/bond with him, how you could never ever harm him because you love him too much. Talk about the fact that you don't force him when you're having sex together, that it came naturally and that you didn't "trained" him to do so as some people could think. Tell her that if he wanted to stop humping to do something else, he could very well do. Tell her that dogs enjoy sex as much as humans do, else why would they do it in the first place.
There are probably lots of other arguments, do some research because you're not the first one in that case. If she's willing to accept that the common thinking is wrong, I think you can easily convince her.
I know she isn't intentionally being hypocritical, she's genuinely a good person and usually does the research and forms her own opinions.
I think in this case she probably has not done enough research because like, if it wasn't something a person is struggling with not many would have an interest in digging that far into something everyone else says is a no-go. I think you can talk to her about it and pick her brain a bit, given that she has probably seen you and Toby interact a lot so she can see that trust relationship with that he has with you and kinda work from there.
It can be an anthropomorphic view of human-animal relationship with a denial of animal sexuality.
I know plenty humans who think animals can love in a romantic way but can't love in a sexual way.
Great, especially considering some cases where it is exactly opposite.
And it's exactly the opposite.
I let the animal come to me the same way it would engage with any other animal. They can't consent, no. They're not sentient. However, if the animal comes to you, you respect it, it's not hurt, etc. That's basically the definition of consent.
Dogs are indeed sentient and are capable of basic consent. The consent people try to look for in regards to sex is informed consent which they see as not being able to be had because dogs can't know potential ramifications and whatnot but dogs don't have that philosophy anyways.
Yeah, sorry. I had my definition of 'sentient' wrong. I meant self-aware. And yes they are indeed capable of basic consent.
Every mammals are self-aware.
Every birds are self-aware.
I can't be affirmative for reptile, I don't know them well enough.
Any evidence on that?
Only my own experience.
That's not how it works.
You need to do research and have your facts.
I'm an aviation technician, not an ethologist.
There is of course the fact that many parrots and dolphins pass the "mirror test."
On the other hand, I had a dog that would consistently fail it, and another that would pass it with flying colors...
I'm unaware of any other way to prove it. And failing the mirror test doesn't prove one is NOT self aware bear in mind, it only proves that they don't understand mirrors. It can however, positively affirm self-awareness.
I agree evidence beyond first-hand is neccesary for broad claims, however. Have an upvote.
I agree that if one fails "the mirror test" it doesn't mean they aren't self aware. I don't think we are really ready to determine whether they are self aware or not yet. I just wanted some evidence for it, rather than just "my own experience" which sounds like nothing but bullshit.
I wouldn't go so far as to say all first hand accounts are bullshit, but scientific fact they are certainly not.
Did you ever live with an animal ?
Looks like you've managed to miss almost every single post I made here. Good job!
Yes, I have my own and have grown up with them.
So why did you ask me evidences if you already know ?
Haha no, but you need some actual evidence buddy.
First, I'm not your "buddy".
Second, I don't want, nor mind, to convince you, or anyone else here.
Then why did you make a comment in the first place, pal?
You're embarrassing yourself. Claiming things without evidence doesn't get you in much places.
Claiming without evidence is well enough to ban bestiality in most place.
I'm too tired to argue against poeple.
I'm too old to believe I can change the world.
20 years ago, maybe I would take an argument battle with you.
But now, I just want to make short messages, then close the screen and pet my cat.
That's not relevant.
I mean... so what?
Except for the fact that it's
Then don't claim anything like that.
I mean, then you shouldn't even go on Reddit.
Well it's obvious.
If not anyone here can convince each other something, then how can we convince the world at all?
« We » ?
Grow up a little. There's no "we".
I don't need to grow a little, I'm not a plant.
Might as well command you to learn English.
But yes, there is a we. Sssh sssh... I know it's a little too much brainpower for you, but you gotta try, alright?
Might I tell you "vas te faire foutre" ?
English isn't my native language.
But I know it need a little too much brainpower for you to even think about it.
Might I tell you ''Flikker op met je tering taal.''?
English isn't my native language, what's your real excuse?
I mean yes, because it's not our native language we can make a lot of mistakes but so what?
Still, that's why I recommended you to actually learn it. Sadly for you, you got very offended for no reason.
But you're right, it requires quite a lot of brainpower to understand you human creatures. I know that I am very tired of humanity.
Now, you understand me.
Psychologists have been working with a smell test that relies on a dogs own scent to determine awareness recently.
I have a curiosity question. We know that animals can recognize individuals of their own and other species. One study in Britain even proved that horses will remember humans that were nice to them twenty years ago. I have known dogs that would hold a grudge for life.
So, how is it that detailed recognition and identification of numerous other individuals does not prove understanding of the concept of individuality and therefor some sense of their own individuality?
good question. I think some (asshole) animal scientist will easily create some specific thinking separating those two qualities. Why? because they fail to reflect on their own dominative mindset, and because teh 'higher condition' nearly universally considered as some mark to separate those who must be respected and those who might be left in dust. So, all animals are "intelligent" as long as proving it bring more fame to researcher ..and suddently they become 'nothing but just animals' when such researcher asked about why s/he supported captivity and all other, more subtle ways of exploitation..
It partially answer your question, I think. Ability to understand external world not necessary mean one understand his/her internal world .... Some sense of "i..??" probably present anyway, but beyond this ..and ya, I talk about humans here, mostly, because THEY tend to brag so much about how their thinking is so damn good .... not so, from more distanced viewpoint.
Dogs have actually more recently shown that they can be self aware. The mirror test is a bit flawed in the sense that it relies on the patient to have an interest in marks on their body.
A new test using dogs' scent has shown promise, though.
In that study specifically, the study's discussion and conclusion infer a possibility that this may be because dogs and many other animals that fail the visual test are more olfactory thinkers. It would explain why avians more frequently pass the visual test, as well.
I just tend to think our (dominant) type of society at large (but down to individuals next to you) IS insane, by classical definition of insanity as misaligned image/model of reality we have in our heads with reality itself. On all levels from human politics to our views on psychology/how humans (and other beings) think etc ..... Unfortunately, I see no realistic way out of such state :/
I'm sorry, my puny human consciousness cannot BEGIN perceive your exquisitely superior intellect in your neural pathways.
There is no magic, just thinking.. If you spend like five years reading and thinking about particular subject - you will be better immersed into problem than someone who spend all those years doing ..something else.
I think about something like .. "ANTHROPOCENTRISM AND REASON IN DIALECTIC OF ENLIGHTENMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS AND ANIMAL SUBJECT André Krebber* " or other works ..of course one can twist dance around any of this ..but ...it will become another symptom of problem I try to highlight....
Frankly, the standard for consent is so unclear and variable between individuals in different contexts that I honestly doubt most people could even tell you their standard directly. Animals just aren't a part of it, period.
That's not hypocritical, because sex and romance are very different.
Although... they both require the same things for it to be consensual: Knowing what romance/sex really is.
I'd say that's more stupid because animals can't give consent to romantic relationships but can give consent to sex.
There's no such things as romance in animals. And honestly, it's not even different than owning an animal in a non-romantic way, and they don't give consent to being owned by you to begin with.
All you (most likely) is dispense extra love to your animal. And I'd say taking it to a really big level, like wanting to die for your animal or being constantly with them.
That doesn't have to do much with consent, so...
I know what you mean, but I meant romantic as in simply caring more for the animal.
That's what I said...
And that's exactly my point: How is it hypocritical, then?
Even though it's kind of dumb to say they can consent to it...
I think I meant hypocritical in the sense that it's blatant how sexual animals are.
Then you might as well call everyone who says animals can't give consent hypocritical in that way...
Still, just because they're sexual doesn't mean they can give consent.
Hopefully that's not your way of saying they can give consent...
No, of course it's not why they can, I think hypocritical was the wrong word. type of romantic relationship she has in mind is human level romance.
Why should you care about what she thinks?
Better yet, why would you even try to rationalize to her your relationship with your dog? Of course, you can't expect people without this attraction to understand the sexual aspects of it.