is peanut butter rape?
- Thread starter clex
- Start date
SultryHellhound
Citizen of Zooville
At worst, it's rape, and at best, it's deception. If they wouldn't have licked you without PB, then I consider it to be rape.
I slightly modified the poll to make it more clear what you are choosing.
Using bait for licking is against the rules, it fall into forced sex category.
It might not be rape, but it is a highly dishonest and disingenuous way of making an animal do something they would no do for you without bait. And especially with unnecessary behaviors like sex where the animal should by all means have a choice, using this is plain wrong.
Using bait for licking is against the rules, it fall into forced sex category.
It might not be rape, but it is a highly dishonest and disingenuous way of making an animal do something they would no do for you without bait. And especially with unnecessary behaviors like sex where the animal should by all means have a choice, using this is plain wrong.
Coolbeanz78
Citizen of Zooville
Lol
girlwithdalmatiangirl
Tourist
The motivation differs but everyone gets exactly what they wanted. You can think of countless examples where this is the case and generally considered to be completely unproblematic so I don't see why the one sided perception of it as something sexual is supposed to change anything about it. Also it would be logically inconsistent with every way of training a dog as you always manipulate them with different incentives (food) to do something for you the dog would otherwise have no interest in doing. There is no way a dog could understand all related interests when obeying a command. You often dont even understand how you are incentiviced and for what purpose in daily life.
SxaBeast
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Would your pet or significant other love you if you didnt feed em? Are we decieved into loving mom by delish pbjs? Lol.!
Coolbeanz78
Citizen of Zooville
Good point
Which is why animals must not be trained for sex. No sex command, no mount command nothing like that. The animal has to have a choice of their own. Most people do not understand why this is important. But to grasp the importance of consent, you have to be a zoophile. So the lack of understanding is understandable with the userbase of this forum.
SxaBeast
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Correct. I was just being silly.
EuropeanMan
Tourist
I consider it cheating
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Yea no. You do not train a dog for sex. Period. Dogs will either naturally get into it or not, but yes, sexual DOES change it.
If the dog wouldn't have licked you without peanut butter, it's wrong to use it as an incentive.
girlwithdalmatiangirl
Tourist
Sorry but I cant reply much because you dont tell anything about the reasons for your stated opinions...
Maybe for the "sexual does change it" part: So when a dog licks my hand and it feels good for me it is fine but when its my nipples it is abuse because the dog is unaware of it feeling nice for me due to sexual reasons and thus cant consent to the now sexual act, eventhough nothing has changed for the dog? I'm not trying to make fun of it but wouldn't flowers abuse bees by the same logik because everyone gets what they wanted but for the flower it is a purely sexual intention and the bee is unaware of that? (not implying that a bee could really be aware of anything but just to illustrate how easy that idea fails)
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Offering peanut butter means the dog isn't performing an act on you because they want to, but because they want a treat. That's called enticing, or baiting, and it's absolutely wrong.
You need/flower analogy doesn't work here. That is a necessary function of nature, that affect more than just giving a flower some loving. So that idea fails, period.
Your dog has the sense to be able to make choices. My girl asks for sex, I don't reward her for it, nor did I teach it to her. My boys asks for a jack, there is no reward.
Enticing or training is wrong, your conditioning an animal that doesn't want to decline, because then they won't get a tasty treat.
That's like almost like paying for sex from a prostitute forced into the life. She doesn't want to, but she gets a treat at the end by not being beaten to near death. Unwanted act performed, reward is a cut, failing is punishment. She still doesn't WANT to.
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Will your girl play without it?
K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I know this doesn't apply across the board, but I've never discouraged mine from licking me (anywhere in a non sexual way). I freely allow it until I've had enough. In this way, they know licking me is ok.
But I think about people that discourage their dogs from licking them in a non sexual way, say on the hands or face. Of fucking course the dog is going to be reluctant to lick your twat or dick at that point because you've already taught them that licking you=bad.
This is why I discourage "training" in favor of "guidance". In this example, if you let them lick you, then they learn licking is ok. Once they know it's ok, then you can start to not let them lick at certain times or situations. Just then make sure to allow them to lick you in appropriate situations and allow them to know that it makes you happy. It's really as simple as that and they'll learn all on their own that there's a time and place for things.
But I think about people that discourage their dogs from licking them in a non sexual way, say on the hands or face. Of fucking course the dog is going to be reluctant to lick your twat or dick at that point because you've already taught them that licking you=bad.
This is why I discourage "training" in favor of "guidance". In this example, if you let them lick you, then they learn licking is ok. Once they know it's ok, then you can start to not let them lick at certain times or situations. Just then make sure to allow them to lick you in appropriate situations and allow them to know that it makes you happy. It's really as simple as that and they'll learn all on their own that there's a time and place for things.
girlwithdalmatiangirl
Tourist
After reading your replies, I would really like to point to my first response to the topic, so that I dont have to repeat most of it.
Let me have a guess: "no its different because its sex!"? ?
Everyone can think of countless examples in which you do something without the act itself being the motivation and its totally fine as long as nobody is forced (I guess thats generally agreed upon). Thats the whole idea behind training a dog or do you train your dogs by telling them about why you dont want feces on your carpet? So I just assume that you tried to repeat that it is "wrong" if (and only if) the act can be considered sexual for some reason...
So flowers just need to abuse bees? ? Jokes aside, I guess you propose that the "wrong if only one side considers it sexual" idea that you came up with should be extended to "[...], unless it helps creating offsping" ...not exactly the topic but you should be aware of how many plants do not actually rely on insects but they just offer some advantage over e.g. wind for pollination. Also, most things that we do for pleasure are not necessary (i assume for survival of the own species?). Are they thus not OK or is it again just about the release of dopamine or oxytocine being triggered by organs that are involved in reproduction instead of e.g. the skin on my hand like in my example that makes it something completely different for some reason that still want mentioned? Would also be interesting to know if nipples would then be "sexual" by that definition ?
Sounds like your "jacks" are terrible ? In this part you mix some things up: Yes, a dog can make choices and nobody said something different. It also is the dogs choice to lick a certain body part or not, no matter if you consider it sexual or not, it doesnt change it. All choices depend on incentives.
Your dogs are untrained? I dont think so ? But this doesnt add anything new.
Sure, lets throw violence into the argument as if we were debating anything related to it ? ...Because it makes for easy moral judgement, I guess. If you actually need to be remembered: the whole argument is about a dog being (positively) incentiviced to do something that you consider to be sexual but the dog does not.
Why have you changed it into having sex? Thats not really the question. Also, the dog doesnt want to have sex but then gets enticed ...so it now wants to have sex? But then its an opinion that should be ignored? If your girlfriend offers you watching your favorite movie together if you do the dishes, you are objectified because you didnt intrinsically want to do the dishes but got enticed? ?
Let me have a guess: "no its different because its sex!"? ?
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
It's wrong when both parties aren't on level ground when it comes to comprehension of the act. Training a dog not to shit in the house, hygiene. Training them to behave, that's actually a lot more about safety, a dog who listens, isn't a dog running into traffic.
The cycle of nature, and the importance of bees has been scientifically proven and published dozens of times. And still has zero to do with this.
For the rest see my last reply
If my jacks were bad why does he ask daily at minimum? Both my mates lick me of their own volition, sometimes as foreplay, sometimes one will while I'm playing with the other.
While I can't claim that they have full comprehension, I do not offer rewards or incentives, beyond the actions of the act itself, in relation to sex. Period. If the girl is licking me, so that I'll do her, that's foreplay and communication. And in my house, they ask for stuff more than I do.
Of course not. They are trained to keep them safe, and my enforcement of the ruleseentirely depends on what dangers breaking the rule could potentially cause.
Now you're just reaching. I gave an example to a comparable situation with both a positive incentive and a negative one. I figured embellishing the example and providing both possible outcomes would provide you clarity, but instead all it seems to have done, is make you stumble.
No, again, is about parties being on even ground and comprehension, something you clearly are lacking, or you're just so vehemently trying to defend training and deception.
Gee I wonder why zoo's have a stigma.
K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Ok, so I kinda see your point here, and it isn't completely without merit, however we also need to remember how quickly someone looking in from the outside would see this.
As I mentioned in my other post on this same topic, I make a point of allowing dogs to do what they do naturally. If they do anything for the first time that I am ok with, but say it isn't a good time, I try to go ahead and make it a good time.
For instance, say the dog has never licked me or jumped on me before, but I just got done getting cleaned up and dressed for a business dinner, and on my way out the door, he decides that he is going to jump on me and lick me to death all over my face and dirty up my fresh clean clothes.
So there's two options in this scenario. Most people would scold the dog, make sure their clothes were ok, and leave. And what did the dog learn here?
Not me. I'm going to allow them to do it, and to fuck with my clothes and hair. I can fix all of that, and if that causes me to be a few minutes late, so be it. I don't even have to lie about it. "Hey, sorry I'm late. The dog jumped on me when I was walking out the door, so I had to go change right quick". And again, what did the dog learn in this instance?
Back to how outsiders would see things. While it isn't much, I CAN honestly say that I do not offer ANY incentive for them to perform ANY act other than the pleasure they get out of the act itself. While I realize that to an outsider, me not doing that wouldn't mean much to them, but holy shit, they would latch onto that if I did!!
Not doing anything like that also gives me peace of mind that they are doing what they're doing for NO other reasons than because they want to.
I do not reward them with treats and shit like that for good behavior. That's not to say I don't give them treats. I do, but I do it for no reasons at all other than I want them to have a treat for no reason at all.
And treats for them is sharing a bowl of ice cream with them in bed or sharing a box of cookies. Again. No reason at all other than I want to do something nice for them.
But at the end of the day, if you're doing everything else correctly, there is zero need for peanut butter and shit like that, and even if you and the dog sees nothing wrong with it, and hell, even if I knew they preferred it, I still wouldn't do it because I don't want to give anyone any reasons to say that I'm manipulating them in any way.
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
I'm not even going to split this because you already know I have respect for you, and your opinions. This has not changed here.
I'm the same way with treats at this point. I did use trainers to start, for normal stuff, sit, stay, but I weened them off that really quickly in order to facilitate that no expectations of reward, aside from any pleasures or praise for a good decision, like not running into traffic.
As far as intimacy I have a very very strict line of "no incentive beyond the act". That, for me, makes it "they do it for the reward, not for the act". My mates enjoy the act, and thus no other influence need enter.
Getting a little in the dirty ditch here, but if they wanna lick my up load, I'm not going to stop them, that's a result of the act. Same as I enjoy my mouth engorging with his load as he ties with my hand/mouth. The point is, level playing field, and it's all related to the act itself.
Peanut butter adds a different dynamic. The dog isn't licking your pussy or asshole because they love the taste of your pussy or asshole. That tells me, right off the bat, they are not involved.
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
???
It absolutely is. My guy licks my ass, he likes the taste. My girl doesn't, that's ok. Why would I add peanut butter to force her?
My apologies for being so graphic. Just, that seems to have a greater impact ?
Chiara2003
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
It is wrong!!!!?
?
?
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
It is wrong!!!!?
??C'mon Chiara, I can feel those CAPS ?
Chiara2003
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
IT IS WRONG!!!!??
?K_9River_rat
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Honestly I was just trying to see her side of things. I would never do such a thing unless he developed the ability to speak, and told me to put some gravy on that shit! ? All humor aside, I appreciate your respect, and I was just trying to give her some respect right out of the gate even though I totally disagree with her.
I don't know her, and don't know what she knows or doesn't know.
Maybe she's never thought about things in this way or that way.
One thing for nearly certain is that if I open with disrespect, then I can be assured that I will get the same in return, and in all likelihood, she would read my words as an attack and not take even a second to digest what I was saying.
We're all different people with different experiences, and in the end, in some ways, our own successes rely on our abilities to assist others that may not have had the experiences that some of us have had.
If this is going to be about a community, then in my opinion, I should refrain from flaming someone I disagree with, and rather offer up other ways to look at something, and save the flame job for after they decide that my words mean jack shit to them and tell me as much.
Sometimes it's difficult to bite my tongue, but I've found people in some ways to be like dogs, in the sense that sometimes kindness makes more progress in relationships and education.
JazzyPaws
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
In that way we are different. I just can't respect someone who defends this type of behaviour and worse. I also don't generally bite my tongue.
But your stance is, probably the high road. I just lost a lot of faith in humanity overall and have just given up the "customer service face" of feigned respect, too much work for me ?