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.
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!"?