allyfitz
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I'm betting that part of our mutualistic relationship with dogs, going back before "civilization", would be as a consequence-free sex partner. The shape of the dog penis is so perfect for stimulating the human vagina, it's almost as if dogs were bred for this. I'm talking 10k-15k years ago, when sex wasn't taboo and people shared everything in their tribes because they literally needed to trust each other with their lives every single day. I'm not sure how we can know these things with any certainty, but in the book Sapiens, the author talks about women being bred by multiple partners at the same time out of the belief you could combine more than two sets of genes.
In a world where resources are scarce and competition is fierce and violent, and in a time before vibrators or netflix, you can see where "fucking the dog" would be part of life. Necessity is the mother of invention and the human brain hasn't changed fundamentally in at least 30k years.
I'm also guessing that more people are engaging in acts of bestiality with the pandemic because our lives are more closely mimicking how we lived in caves. I doubt it will ever become mainstream or openly discussed, but I do wonder how much more prevalent zoosexuality will be. Between their tongues, penises, etc. I doubt it's a happy accident that everything fits so well. We've lived with dogs for too long for there to not be some sexual selection pressure there, assuming ancient humans had sex with animals but I think we'd be laughably naïve to think that zoosexuality is new. There's a reason your nostrils are big enough for your finger but your ears aren't; nothing in nature that is preserved over time is accidental and there would need to be a clear benefit for humans to share their living space with dogs. I'd actually be surprised if there wasn't a direct connection: you'd be more likely to feed a dog that fucks you well than one that doesn't and we've been living with and breeding these animals so long we don't know when it started. If it hasn't always been a thing, it wouldn't be a thing.
ive thought this for a while now. If you go back to the paleolithic times, there would have been a few alpha males that would have their pick of the women, and they'd want to make sure any children were theirs. So how would he keep his women satisfied and less willing to fuck other men in the tribe? Well, if he lets them fuck the dogs whenever they want, and they're able to get satisfied from that... they'd probably rather do that than risk cheating with another man possibly being caught and being thrown out of their high status position as the alpha's woman.
Back in the day being thrown out from such a position would probably mean death, as the rest of the men would also not want to have anything to do with you because of fear you'd pull the same shit on them. Back then life was brutal. A woman wouldnt want to fuck up a good situation by fucking another guy in the tribe if she has her mans blessing to fuck the dogs whenever she wants.
Also, its interesting to note that copulative tying is very uncommon in nature. I mean it makes sense... while you're tied... you're not very effective at defending yourself. From what I've read this is generally why it's so uncommon among species.
And interestingly among wild canids, the knots are smaller and the ties are shorter. So why the difference?
I've wondered if domesticated dogs one of the breeding benefits of dogs among prehistoric man didn't also have an impact on knot size.
Because you're right... its so unnaturally good at pleasing a woman. For the chieftain or whoever, if you know one of your male dogs pleasures your women more than the others... you might consider breeding him instead of the others for offspring. It wont make much of a difference immediately, but over 10,000 years it will.
Why would large knots have evolved in domesticated dogs to such a degree when large knots not something we see among wild Canids.