I am not sure that I get your point completely. It is normal for animals to woo and have sex with other animals who can't speak [human language] and can't understand full sentences. Why do you think that the inability to do that matters to the animal when a human is involved?
Apart from that, dogs in particular are astoundingly good at understanding humans in many respects. I don't even know how my dog does this, but his excitement level when I get ready to leave the house clearly depends on what I plan to do outside without me having told him in advance. He doesn't just know whether I plan to leave alone or go together with him. That's something he might tell from my clothing. But he also appears to know whether we're going on a walk all alone or whether we have a date with another person and their dog somewhere on our walk half an hour later.
Let's exclude your argument that the animal would need the human to raise them. I oppose sex with immature animals and that would also be sanctioned by the rules of this forum. I'd also like to add that many zoos who have sex with animals do so with animals whom they didn't raise beforehand, but got as an adult.
As for being responsible for each other ... I think that is something that humans are for each other as well, especially when married, and it is also more or less true for social animals. The grade of responsibility of a human for his animal is probably bigger though. We own them, legally speaking. I don't think this makes consent impossible. But for the sake of understanding your point better: what if the one who has sex with the animal isn't the owner? Imagine for example that another zoo visits me and my dog and him are both horny for each other. Is it okay and consensual then, if they have sex?
I agree that the animal may not fully understand all intentions and implications, just as I do not fully grasp what the animal is thinking. But do animals fully understand what another animal thinks? Do I really know the motives, hopes and plans of other humans I interact with? I can at least answer the latter question and the answer is usually "no".
My impression is that you aspire a super high standard for informed consent that may be a desirable ideal for humans, but is in that extent actually irrelevant to and not expected by animals and is often not even realized in practice between adult humans – who still think they consent.
Sorry for late reply.
And
Just want the consent to be unambiguous as possible.
And yes, I’ve even seen people talk about a “sixth sense” animals have, but I don’t think this promises an understanding you’d get from a healthy, adult human relationship, because that’s an ambiguous understanding, that seems to be for setting the grounds of a full understanding that we can’t communicate.
And although that’s made with best intentions, being able to have sex with an animal that’s at least 1 to 2 years old seems odd in age difference, in terms of life experience.
The level of responsibility over an animal is not equal to that of an adult human relationship. A close example I know of is that of people with mental disabilities that make them more dependent and their caretaker.
And among my understanding of zoophiles, that would require your consent for your animal.
And consent isn’t completely about understanding the other party’s intentions, but also about knowing that both are conscious and capable enough to consent fairly.
For example, a dog consenting to being a pet isn’t something we work on communicating, because we can’t fully communicate that, but we still technically consider the consent, because we think about what’s best for the animal’s survival, regardless of their awareness. Many animals are healthier when they’re taken care of by qualified owners. And many animals are banned from being pets, when most people likely can’t provide the right life for them.
But this becomes something different when it comes to sexual contact because we don’t know what they *actually* want if we were able to communicate on a more even level. Turning the question if a caretaker of a disabled adult-child can choose what‘s best for their health, into if the caretaker is allowed to have sex with the adult-child.
The hypothetical disabled person is sexually mature, knows what sex is, has sexual urges, can’t speak, likely doesn’t understand reality as we do, and is mentally dependent on others.
So capability of consent comes to question, because we can’t know if the disabled person actually wants sexual contact or not. And the hypothetical disabled person reciprocating, even seemingly not influenced, doesn’t count.
So, even if the caretaker tries their best to allow a choice for the disabled, if the disabled might not even show any signs of abuse afterwards, it’s best not to risk abuse because they’ll never grow enough to recognize the lack of consent. Just like how consent isn’t just a yes or a no for a drunk person or a child.
And I don’t think I mean to say all this to convince anyone but myself, now. I know choosing to believe zoophiles seems wrong, until I think of replacing a dog with a human that acts like one, but I always triple check to see if I’m not leaving someone misunderstood. And I don’t think I’d want to leave someone who naturally has a paraphilia hanging without any answers of what to do if what they like is wrong.
Hm, I guess not unless I’m completely certain with a plan afterwards? But I’d have to study a lot of animal neurobiology and I’m not the best at studying all of that. Hope we get more conclusive and unbiased studies in the future.
).
