How we discuss "consent" is problematic.

[Zethin]

When zoophilia is brought up in debate the pressing factor tends to be whether or not "animals can consent". And further debate revolves answering this.

This however is not an adequate enough question given the following problems.

1. Wording it as such lumps all non human animals into a single group and assumes their ability(or inability to give consent). Is universal across all species.
This not only ignores the subtleties and distinctions of animal communication it also ignores the realities of how humans communicate and establish sexual communication. Such as the importance of actively reading a partners body language during sex.

2. It relies on an anthropocentric view of consent that is species agnostic.
That is to say there are many definitions and types of consent "informed implied unanimous" and when discussed the arguement usually devolves into stalemate where both parties are unwilling to budge from a definition of consent that is easier to attack or defend.

3.) It ignores the psychological impacts of how individual species react to and conceptualize sexual stimulation.
Their are many forms of sexual contact that may not be recognized as sexual to animal given its species(ie. A dog performing cunninlingus on a woman) and many sexual courtship behaviours that animals may exhibit that are not immediately recognizable to a human as such.

Their are countless instances where humans sexual stimulate animals in ways that are morally inconsistent with society's views on beastiality, yet still considered acceptable. Such as artificial insemination and tactile pair bonding with certain species of birds.

4.) It resolves a anthropocentric view of intelligence animals are often incorrectly compared to humans in intelligence by stating "the have the intelligence of X year old" this is problematic for multiple reasons and leads to some very nasty implications if followed to a logical extreme.

An adult animal does not have the intelligence of a X year old human child. It has the intelligence of an adult animal.
Intelligence is varied and distinct. Our fixation on certain types of intelligences speaks more to what we value as a collective species as opposed to a metric for which to classify members of completley different species.
It is known for example that chimpanzees posses better short term memory abilities than humans. But it would be laughable if one were to hear this and conclude "humans must have the minds of a juvenile chimp than."

5. It views zoophilia as a binary where one is either a zoophile or not. When it is a spectrum with things such as furry porn and teratophilia (while under a different name) somewhere on the middle of that spectrum and zoo exclusivity on the far end.

My apologizes if this in the wrong thread. I'm still new and still trying but I think these are important talking points to bring to the table when discussing the ethics of zoophilia

 

[caikgoch]

Anyone who brings "consent" into a debate on Zoophilia is either very ignorant or deceptive. It's a classic red herring.

Legal consent, the kind found in human society, is impossible for animals. Legal or informed consent necessarily implies a contract between the involved parties. Animals lack the kind of communication needed to understand a contract. It should also be obvious that if animals were capable of legal consent for sex, legal consent would be required for other aspects of their lives like breeding, captivity, or butchering.

That said, I am careful to manage personal consent with my animal partners. That's because I prefer large animals (horses) and could get seriously hurt ignoring their preferences in intimate behavior.

 

[Zethin]

That is an excellent point.
It's probably better to specify "legal consent" as a red herring as opposed to the concept of consent in general though as it prevents those on the sidelines of an arguement from assuming the pro zoo crowd takes a indifferent/hostile stance towards the general idea of consent.

 

[nekdoneco123]

what exactly is the point of this thread? ppl "out there to get us" won't listen whatever we say... and your number 4 is my guess why they seem to compare us to pedophiles the most

 

[caikgoch]

your number 4 is my guess why they seem to compare us to pedophiles the most

When people equate adult animals to human children, I like to propose a challenge. To prove my horse is smarter and better than you, lets drop both of you naked in the middle of the Western Prairie and see who thrives.

 

[d3bbievictor]

what exactly is the point of this thread? ppl "out there to get us" won't listen whatever we say... and your number 4 is my guess why they seem to compare us to pedophiles the most

We must do our best to change that, the majority of people just follow what they're told, so we must tell them different if we want to see a difference.

The danger is to porn, and community.

I have often though that dogs and horses being pack animals do not have rape, "rape" is instead a show of social dominance more like a backhanded compliment than an assault, we are talking about animals that literally brown nose as a compliment. the communicate non verbally, and there's no social stigma to casual sex, or receiving unwanted sex,

We also allow people with the mental capacity of 8 year olds to have sexual relationships, (this ahs nothing to do with atual 8 year olds, these people unlike 8 year old swont recover from the stupidity of youth)

 

[IHO]

When people equate adult animals to human children, I like to propose a challenge. To prove my horse is smarter and better than you, lets drop both of you naked in the middle of the Western Prairie and see who thrives.

I like to use reply with something similar to the following. But as said, they don't listen and they don't care.

There are also claims that adult canines have the mind of a human child. This claim comes from studies by humans based on human-parameters where animals are tested on their comprehension of HUMAN language, puzzles, obstacles and math. Animals are not human; such tests do not make dogs the intellectual/mental equivalent of human children. Claiming mature, adult animals are the mental equivalent of human children is theoretical speculation stemming from human conceit. Human children are developing and are emotionally/sexually immature in relation to their species' adult version. Adult animals are sexually mature and aware, and if they have not been "fixed", they seek sexual partners as most other mammals do. A child is a child and an adult is an adult, regardless of species.

Let's see how a human child does in tests with dog parameters. No - not "fetch" or "roll-over"; those are human-parameters. Canine-specific abilities. Advanced intruder detection and their friend-or-foe status before they are in sight? Finding food or water in the wilderness with no data or direction? Hunting as part of a pack? Survive with no human-made tools, training, supplies or accommodations? How to not get mauled by the Alpha? Understanding what a dog is communicating to them in using their language (behaviors, expressions and actions)?

 

[Zethin]

what exactly is the point of this thread? ppl "out there to get us" won't listen whatever we say... and your number 4 is my guess why they seem to compare us to pedophiles the most

Its never about the "people out to get us" its about the people watching on the sidelines.

and yes the #4 does address a tactic people use to try to equate zoophilia to pedophilia its a dishonest tactic and I would argue that antis making such a comparison makes light of how horrible pedophilia is.

It's important as zoophiles that we continually have discourse on consent and ethics not just for our own practice of zoophilia but also for the culture surrounding it.

 

[EasterSurprise]

"Legal consent" in the context of zoophilia is really just an excuse for "I personally think this is disgusting and should be banned", because it never applies to other situations. It doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of logic, but it's not the point.

If we look at another example where consent is important in humans -- healthcare -- you do not ask a horse to consent to veterinary care for obvious reasons. Consent can reasonably be implied in this case when acting in the best interest of the animal. Though in many cases as well we don't care at all what happens to the animal (forced impregnation, slaughtering for meat, etc).

The human standards of morality we apply are pretty much threefold: 1) people have the right to control what happens to their own bodies (if legally able), and 2) they must not be exploited (especially if they cannot consent or have limited ability to consent), 3) it must not be harmful (if the person is not able to understand the harms they are exposed to, legally capable people can make stupid decisions if they want).

So back to zoophilia, this comes down to is it exploiting the animal, and is the animal suffering harm. If you're restraining and having sex with an animal against its wishes and causing it severe distress, obviously this is wrong.

If the animal is consenting within their own capacity, and regardless of how comfortable it makes people some animals solicit humans for sex with no prior exposure to human partners, and providing the owner is not exploiting or harming the animal then there should not be anything wrong with it.

An example of exploitation by itself might be an unscrupulous owner who charges others to have sex with their animal. Even if the animal in question accepts having sex with the 'customers' and strictly speaking isn't harmed, they are being exploited.

That's the ethics as I see it. Allow animals to consent within their capacity -- they have sex naturally after all and some seek out humans. Don't exploit them. Don't harm them.

Seems simple enough.

 

[Spawn86]

That's the ethics as I see it. Allow animals to consent within their capacity -- they have sex naturally after all and some seek out humans. Don't exploit them. Don't harm them.

Seems simple enough.

I mostly agree, however harm and exploitation seems so be perfectly acceptable by society when it comes to farm animals, when deemed necessary and reasonable. Milking, butchering, etc.

The thing is, most non zoos dont consider having sex with them a necessary or reasonable thing to do, hence exploitation for this purpose will be looked down upon.

However if there's no exploitation or harm involved, I think even non zoos will have a hard time ethically ustifying why this is wrong, aside for religious reasons.

 

[LeftFilly]

I was in a debate with an anti-zoo recently where they mostly backed down, and they withdrew their initial position, there are two other arguments to manage here that are also a little deeper into the subject we discussed though.

Conceptualization without action:
It is difficult to get an animal to understand you want to engage with it without something that would reveal the intentions to them, this generally means either interacting with them in a limited fashion to start with, or exposing them to media that explains the concept, which would also be a form of sexual harassment in showing images and media to an animal that can't express an interest in receiving it. This depth of topic though starts to get on the fuzzy lines because most humans do not actually learn about sexuality in a completely knowledgeable and consensual way, thus this topic is very fuzzy as to what would be appropriate or not, but the general consensus seems to be that using images to explain a concept first is closer to the ideal.

Power dynamics:
One major factor is that for the most part, humans entirely control the surroundings of and acceptable behavior of the animals they keep. Though animals do express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with things, they don't generally get exposed to situations in which they are given full autonomy of choice and consequence in other areas of their life. Thus it is difficult to say from an outside experience if an animal entirely can differentiate the fact that they get a choice in what happens with their sexuality, but aren't allowed to leave the boundaries of their home without their owner. This argument generally starts to fall apart though once you get to a level of communication with an animal that you understand their choices in this way, as there comes a sort of moral requirement to respect their other desires and decisions as well.

This second argument really circles back to the not all animals are equal argument though, some have a lot better understanding of human culture and customs and technology than those that do not have as much exposure or socialization. Even within the same species, some may eagerly understand and get what they want through complex communication, and others simply might not have that education yet.

Part of the issue I've noticed with these debates is that the folks making them are generally caught off guard by being challenged to debate them. It's generally socially acceptable to run with the animals can't consent argument because it gets repeated so often, and the field of animal preferences and independent decision making is very poorly studied and not really taught to most people. Therefore it tends to make the person you are debating with and the surrounding audience very uncomfortable to challenge their status quo when they weren't expecting it.

The consent argument out right breaks on veterinary care though, because other than the concept of implied consent in medical practice dealing with unconscious victims, there isn't much precedence to handle the topic in a way that even considers it.

The whole argument quickly brings out other discrepencies in the moral understanding of animals as well, as to most humans they live in a fantasy limbo between our concept of personal property and static objects, and our concept of human rights. This limbo generally treats them as defenseless humans, that are also emotionless and disposable property. The "intelligence" barrier I tend to find is more of just an attempt to justify the deeper issues with the philosophical inconsistencies. This gets back to the animals can't consent, but they can be used for milk and meat style of arguments. Furthermore, most people don't assign animals any moral responsibility, IE if a dog murders it's owner the dog isn't responsible for it. Thus leading to the "they don't understand what they are doing" argument, which they will use even if an animal clearly did understand what it was doing.

Since animals can't make moral decisions or be held accountable in their mindset, it's also impossible for them to consent because if they did something wrong they'd have no ability to be held to the terms of the social contract. Since consent is contractual and the prevailing ideology is that animals aren't permitted to participate in contracts, hence why it is acceptable to use them as private property. This conception has been ignored on a whim more or less when using animal in court cases though, as for example talking parrots being allowed to testify.

This entire analysis sort of leaves one begging the question though, if most people are also unable to successfully defend themselves in court without the assistance of an external lawyer, is the animal really in a better or worse case to make it's defense than a typical human who suffers from being mute. It's really all up to how successful people are at interpreting the intended messages animals give us. Most people lack experience enough in this to do it to any objective degree, and so the concept completely eludes the inexperienced, and everyone who can do it looks like a ancient druid practicing forbidden celtic nature magic.

Really though, from the literature I've studied at least, animals seem to engage in contract like obligations all the time. Just as often as humans make small agreements with each other. They are also generally held to account by their peers, as a puppy who plays too rough is going to get kicked out of the group. So one must broaden the concept of the social contract into the domain of other species and their social expectations. So few people ever cross this mythical bridge that effectively it's deserted on the other side except for those who have similar backgrounds and experiences. Making actually truly winning these arguments very difficult because what seems to us as objective communication and intention is totally lost on the majority of people.

 

[IHO]

So back to zoophilia, this comes down to is it exploiting the animal, and is the animal suffering harm. If you're restraining and having sex with an animal against its wishes and causing it severe distress, obviously this is wrong.

The no harming and restraining points are a given for sure. But if (for example) a dog, male or female - maybe not even your dog - that hasn't been "trained" for sex (and may have never had sex with a person before), displays clear sexual advances toward a person (as they would with their species), and doesn't say "no" (again, in their ways) at any point during the whole thing, is the person really exploiting them? They clearly want sexual attention/engagement from the person or they wouldn't follow through without obvious reluctance, physical distress and/or force/restraint. It almost seems like consent on the PERSON'S part to the animal's wishes.

If it IS exploitation, isn't is also exploitation with human partners who clearly want you to have sex with them via verbal or non-verbal interaction? I mean, from a hetero perspective, if someone is rubbing their puffy, juicy naked junk on my naked junk and puts me inside one of their orifices without any verbal interaction between us, I would think consent is implied. I have literally had a female dog do more-or-less that exact scenario; all I had to do was put my cock in a convenient position for her. If the human or dog didn't want things to progress, they wouldn't allow it. Non-verbally this would be through avoiding genital contact, deflection, or attempts to redirect attention to something else (changing the subject).

Unless you have a person sign a witnessed sex agreement or secretly taped the whole thing, they could later cry rape/coercion about something they verbally consented to in privacy. What value does "verbal consent" really have? Actions speak louder than words.

 

[IHO]

To my previous post - and per @LeftFilly 's comments - it's definitely a different scenario if I want to have sex with a non-human partner who is not actively displaying sexual interest. But I think my intentions are crystal clear, and I let them make the decision to allow it or not.

 

[Reconscope]

We must do our best to change that, the majority of people just follow what they're told, so we must tell them different if we want to see a difference.

The danger is to porn, and community.

I have often though that dogs and horses being pack animals do not have rape, "rape" is instead a show of social dominance more like a backhanded compliment than an assault, we are talking about animals that literally brown nose as a compliment. the communicate non verbally, and there's no social stigma to casual sex, or receiving unwanted sex,

We also allow people with the mental capacity of 8 year olds to have sexual relationships, (this ahs nothing to do with atual 8 year olds, these people unlike 8 year old swont recover from the stupidity of youth)

Dont forget the logic of how dogs are children yet i dont see children born with inhuman strength/knifes as teeth. Right?

 

[d3bbievictor]

Dont forget the logic of how dogs are children yet i dont see children born with inhuman strength/knifes as teeth. Right?

cats are bone with the same, msot cats dont use them, they're lap animals, simply having something is not an arugment, if it was, all pitbulls would need to be put down.

 

[Reconscope]

cats are bone with the same, msot cats dont use them, they're lap animals, simply having something is not an arugment, if it was, all pitbulls would need to be put down.

Why pitbulls in general? Outta every dog type why them as a example?

 

[d3bbievictor]

Why pitbulls in general? Outta every dog type why them as a example?

pitbulls were bred, specifically to kill people. So were most animals of that type.

 

[nekdoneco123]

pitbulls were bred, specifically to kill people. So were most animals of that type.

no dog breed was ever bred "specifically to kill people". pitbulls were originally used to bait and hold down bulls and other large animals and later for ratting ("sport" that involved rats vs terrier dogs) when baiting got banned.

don't spread misinformation as facts, please.. in this day and age it takes a few minutes to do at least a bit of research about anything. being full of shit is not hip anymore

 

[BigXXFoxx]

pitbulls were bred, specifically to kill people. So were most animals of that type.

No. No they weren't.

 

[BigXXFoxx]

Why pitbulls in general? Outta every dog type why them as a example?

Cause it's the go-to for people who can't come up with any good examples of actual viciousness.

 

[nekdoneco123]

Cause it's the go-to for people who can't come up with any good examples of actual viciousness.

and we can thank ppl who just get a pit because they look "badass" or whatever and then don't raise them properly for that... well and the media as well. and not just the news, movies too... whenever there is an "evil" dog in a movie, it's pretty much always a pitbull, rottweiler or a doberman

 

[IHO]

we can thank ppl who just get a pit because they look "badass" or whatever and then don't raise them properly for that.

I have nothing against pitbulls. I know in the right environment/family they can be big sweeties. But unless you are rescuing, why a pitbull over ANY OTHER breed?
Wait, I know the answer: 'cause "Bullets, Beer and Bible"!
"I'ma gonna git me a PITBULL! Gonna make 'im 1 meen sum-bich! Hell ya! If any of them neegrows or libtards come onto my propty or try to brake into my traylur, he can hold 'em while I git my '15!"

(uh... no offense to any pitbull owners who aren't douche-bags) ?

 

[Deleted member 36062]

I have nothing against pitbulls. I know in the right environment/family they can be big sweeties. But unless you are rescuing, why a pitbull over ANY OTHER breed?
Wait, I know the answer: 'cause "Bullets, Beer and Bible"!
"I'ma gonna git me a PITBULL! Gonna make 'im 1 meen sum-bich! Hell ya! If any of them neegrows or libtards come onto my propty or try to brake into my traylur, he can hold 'em while I git my '15!"

(uh... no offense to any pitbull owners who aren't douche-bags) ?

you sound literally like my old neighbors!

 

[Reconscope]

Cause it's the go-to for people who can't come up with any good examples of actual viciousness.

its sad how they are common targets to the media.

 

[d3bbievictor]

no dog breed was ever bred "specifically to kill people". pitbulls were originally used to bait and hold down bulls and other large animals and later for ratting ("sport" that involved rats vs terrier dogs) when baiting got banned.

don't spread misinformation as facts, please.. in this day and age it takes a few minutes to do at least a bit of research about anything. being full of shit is not hip anymore

Unless you think black slaves aren't people,yes, they were. Known as cuban chaussuers they were used to hunt down and kill runaway slave,s "maroons" and later by them to capture other runaways and were employed in jamacia, hati, cuda, and most of the Caribbean however it appears this species,a type of pitbul is now extinct,

• Mid-7th C. BC: In the war waged by the Ephesians against Magnesia on the Maeander. Their horsemen were each accompanied by a war dog and a spear-bearing attendant. Dogs were released first and broke the enemy ranks, followed by an assault of spears, then a cavalry charge.[10] An epitaph records the burial of a Magnesian horseman named Hippaemon with his dog Lethargos, his horse, and his spearman.[11]
• 525 BC: At the Battle of Pelusium, Cambyses II uses a psychological tactic against the Egyptians, arraying dogs and other animals in the front line to effectively take advantage of the Egyptian religious reverence for animals.[12]
• 490 BC: At the Battle of Marathon, a dog follows his hoplite master into battle against the Persians and is memorialized in a mural.[13]
• 480 BC: Xerxes I of Persia is accompanied by vast packs of Indian hounds when he invades Greece. They may have served in the military and were possibly being used for sport or hunting, but their purpose is unrecorded.[14]
• 281 BC: Lysimachus is slain during the Battle of Corupedium and his body was discovered preserved on the battlefield and guarded vigilantly by his faithful dog.[15]
• 231 BC: Roman consul Marcus Pomponius Matho, leading the Roman legions through the inland of Sardinia. The inhabitants led guerrilla warfare, against the invaders, used "dogs from Italy" to hunt out the natives who tried to hide in the caves.[16]
• 120 BC: Bituito, king of the Arverni, attacked a small force of Romans led by the consul Fabius, using just the dogs he had in his army.[17]
• 1500s: Mastiffs and other large breeds were used extensively by Spanish conquistadors against Native Americans.[18]

Dogs in warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dogo Cubano - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

during ancient and medieval eras, dogs were bred for war, to kill, perticuallry in rome's republican era, guard dogs weren't alarms, atleast not historically, they were guards, they were intended to kill.

Attack dog - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[puppyboy88]

If a dog doesn't want it, it'll maul you. Dogs are horny creatures. So 9/10 times I guarantee if you grabbed a stud's cock, or fingered a bitch's pussy they'd play around with you.

 

[nekdoneco123]

snip

i'm just gonna repeat myself to make it more clear i guess, no dog breed was ever specifically bred to "kill humans"... the chausseurs you used as your example were ppl who brutally beat their dogs into aggression, they used various hunting breeds for that (bloodhounds, lurchers) and none of said breeds were originally bred for that purpose.

the ancient "war dogs" as the ones used by romans or persians were also originally ment to guard (livestock against wild carnivores), later also trained to attack, but it wasn't their original use. which was my point all along. noone ever bred dogs specifically to kill people, it always came from training

but i like how your fairly long list suddenly doesn't include pitbulls, even though you came up with "it was their original purpose to kill people"

 

[d3bbievictor]

i'm just gonna repeat myself to make it more clear i guess, no dog breed was ever specifically bred to "kill humans"... the chausseurs you used as your example were ppl who brutally beat their dogs into aggression, they used various hunting breeds for that (bloodhounds, lurchers) and none of said breeds were originally bred for that purpose.

the ancient "war dogs" as the ones used by romans or persians were also originally ment to guard (livestock against wild carnivores), later also trained to attack, but it wasn't their original use. which was my point all along. noone ever bred dogs specifically to kill people, it always came from training

but i like how your fairly long list suddenly doesn't include pitbulls, even though you came up with "it was their original purpose to kill people"

do you have a source?



Dog have been bread to kill, simply having war dog for the 400 years the romans used them means as such, unless you are asserting that killing a human makes a dog infertile....

Until I replied the information I had was the the cuban used pitbulls, it'd only seen pictures, and it was by chance i found the breed under the attackdog article, and to be fair, thet look like pit bulls. and are a crossbed with pitbuls.

I like pitbuls, I think they're a delight.

 

[ᴎoɘA]

To shift the discussion back to the original topic, sadly I think we as unknown individuals have very low chances of changing the landscape so to speak when we are engaging critics with our arguments, as they are just going to hand wave us and our objections away. Instead, we need to convince high profile people or influencers if you will, to make arguments in our favor. Doing so will deny the public the "ignore" option and many will at least read what they have to say. Problem is, not many influencers will risk such a thing even if they are a zoophile themselves for fear of being "cancelled". So what we need to do, is find specific open-minded influencers who are not afraid of controversial statements but at the same time have them not be involved in any kind of controversy, then compile and send a list of the most bulletproof arguments we have available to them in hopes that they will spread it around. currently, our most prominent opponents are influencers themselves, but if we can pit them against each other we might have a winning chance, because then our ideas and arguments will truly clash with the usual bullshit people bring up in defense against zoophilia, and not just fly away into the aether.

 

[egoldstein]

To shift the discussion back to the original topic, sadly I think we as unknown individuals have very low chances of changing the landscape so to speak when we are engaging critics with our arguments, as they are just going to hand wave us and our objections away. Instead, we need to convince high profile people or influencers if you will, to make arguments in our favor. Doing so will deny the public the "ignore" option and many will at least read what they have to say. Problem is, not many influencers will risk such a thing even if they are a zoophile themselves for fear of being "cancelled". So what we need to do, is find specific open-minded influencers who are not afraid of controversial statements but at the same time have them not be involved in any kind of controversy, then compile and send a list of the most bulletproof arguments we have available to them in hopes that they will spread it around. currently, our most prominent opponents are influencers themselves, but if we can pit them against each other we might have a winning chance, because then our ideas and arguments will truly clash with the usual bullshit people bring up in defense against zoophilia, and not just fly away into the aether.

Most of the time when I am debating with someone who's already made up their mind I reply to them but the audience I my words are intended for are the other people reading and not necessarily the person I am replying to.