Rabbit breeding tutorial with hands-on-method.

[CritterFunatic]

I recently stumbled over this article here: https://animals.mom.me/how-to-force-a-doe-rabbit-to-breed-7680018.html

It suggests to do the following:

"Locate her vent using your fingers. The vent is the doe's genital opening and it is located between her hind legs. The anal opening is closer to the tail, while the vent opening is more in the direction of the doe's abdomen.
Stimulate the doe's vent gently with the tip of your finger until her hindquarters start to lift."

Every time I read something like this, I wonder how this is considered morally just, while zoophilia in itself isn't. The cognitive dissonance is certainly there, whenever humans intervene in breeding activities, but this article right here makes me thinking because of another reason.

It makes me thinking because that's the level of sexual involvement with an animal that I find pleasurable. As some people may know, I'm not really into penetrative sex, but certainly into mutual masturbation. In humans that is. But it also applies to animals. Especially little ones that are too small for any other kind of human sexual intercourse anyway.

I certainly like the idea of letting a little critter hump my (hopefully helpful) hand like the Degu does with somebody's hand in the video posted here: https://www.zooville.org/threads/degu.829/

I could also enjoy the idea of doing exactly what this tutorial suggested. Gently rubbing a does vent for her pleasure. To me it's as intimate as a human can safely get with a bunny. To me this is my expression of zoophilia (I know, some zoophiles think I'm far to little on the sex-side of things to be considered a proper zoophile, but this is it). I find the thought arousing and would love it, if I can manage to get the little fuzzballs aroused (and off) as well.

Now reading how people in a non-zoophiliac context are told to do the same for breeding purposes kinda makes me think about all of it. About what I consider a zoo-activity might be something average and normal for others. And what does that mean for me? Is my idea of being a zoophile wrong? Don't I fit the lable simply because I won't go far enough? Or could people like that be considered "unaware zoophiles" as well, as they interfere with the sexual act of animals? Is the difference in intention enough to split the two groups? For them to get an animal ready to breed (mostly for non-altruistic, selfish reasons) and for me to just make the animal happy (or at least satisfied)?

Whenever I think about why people hate zoophilia so much, I occasionally think about how close the public in general is to zoophilia, just without knowing, or thinking about it. Then I think the hate is all way too crazy. But of course, most pet owners get their pets fixed and aren't breeders being bothered with their pets sexuality at all. And most people think about actual animal abuse, when they think about zoophilia. But then I read an article like that and think "Wow... Zoophilia might be almost mainstream, at least among breeders, no matter if someone uses the crumping method to masturbate a stallion by hand to collect semen or if someone tickles the tiny ladyparts of a lagomorph to get her into the right mood..."

So, what are your thoughts? Are the actions of some breeders borderline zoophiliac in nature? Or am I not zoophile enough because I don't intend to get my own genitals involved while I intend to pleasure another species? Or should both things be viewed seperately, based on intention? In the later case I would object, as intentions are just mental constructs that won't make any difference to the animal in question.

But I'm curious about what you think on this matter.

 

[pes]

Are the actions of some breeders borderline zoophiliac in nature?

Unless they do that for pleasure, they are not zoophilic.
I can not say that for sure, but I think most people including breeders see animals as a sort of biological single chip computers programmed to have certain reaction to certain inputs with no intelligence, feelings or emotions involved. And of course as a source of money. They can justify what they do, becasuse it is their job to do it and the animal is just automatically reacting to the stmulation.

Or should both things be viewed seperately, based on intention?

Yes. You are acting zoophilic if you do this for your pleasure or for the pleasure of the animal. Because in that way there is no profit to be had from the action.
We could argue that masturbating animals for their pleasure may be used to calm them down and relieve sexual tension but that means that it fits into the profit part too. That is why owners can masturbate dogs before shows and still feel like they are not zoo.

I think the distinction of what is or is not zoo is carefully manipulated by the society so that people can still do whatever they need or even industrially sexually abuse animals if it brings them profit while still being able to conddmn those who do it for pleasure.

 

[CritterFunatic]

Unless they do that for pleasure, they are not zoophilic.
I can not say that for sure, but I think most people including breeders see animals as a sort of biological single chip computers programmed to have certain reaction to certain inputs with no intelligence, feelings or emotions involved. And of course as a source of money. They can justify what they do, becasuse it is their job to do it and the animal is just automatically reacting to the stmulation.

That, why I said "borderline zoophilic", because, I agree, they don't do it for pleasure. But to the animal the reasoning behind it won't matter much... But otherwise I agree with you. Their reasoning is better accepted in society than the reasoning I'd have in their place.

Yes. You are acting zoophilic if you do this for your pleasure or for the pleasure of the animal. Because in that way there is no profit to be had from the action.

Yeah, I kinda think the same. That's why I'm, surprised that some people in this "community" consider those actions not to be zoophilic at all. It's kinda a surprise if you think you are a zoophile and then have other zoophiles tell you, that you aren't. But I never really agreed with their reasoning, although it's a lable that doesn't mean that much to me anyway, but I'm always curious how people define it anyway.

We could argue that masturbating animals for their pleasure may be used to calm them down and relieve sexual tension but that means that it fits into the profit part too. That is why owners can masturbate dogs before shows and still feel like they are not zoo.

This would put both actions even closer in my opinion. I could imagine doing it for the same reason, but still feel like being a zoo, because I simply would enjoy that action.

I think the distinction of what is or is not zoo is carefully manipulated by the society so that people can still do whatever they need or even industrially sexually abuse animals if it brings them profit while still being able to conddmn those who do it for pleasure.

Probably, yeah. That's why I like to point out how similar those actions are, because the major distinction seems to be the mindset and the reasoning behind it. If you do it because the animal (and you) enjoy it, or because you can exploit the animal for something. For the animal there might be no distinction at all and that's an important factor, because animal protection laws aim at the well-being of the animal. And a certain, non-hurtful action couldn't suddenly be harmful, just because of a different reasoning for it. The action either is or isn't harmful. The reasoning behind it shouldn't make a difference.