Why do people think sex with animals is rape?

Courier

Courier

Tourist
I’ve always wondered why people (non-zoo people to be precise) view animal sex as rape/non consensual

For male humans penetrating animals, I can understand. With my limited knowledge you can’t understand if an animal, whether male or female, consents to you penetrating/breeding it. So an argument about rape can be made here. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong and there is a way to figure out if an animal consents or not.

But for male animals penetrating humans? I really don’t understand that. How is it rape if the animal is penetrating a person and having sex with them on their own, as in the person is not forcing them to do it? I don’t get why would people say this is rape if the animal clearly wants to do it and is enjoying its time.

I’d like to hear your opinions about it, in both matters.
 
The old double standard of female animals can't consent nor want sex much less enjoy it is as much BS as the argument that all animal sex must be rape itself.

You said it yourself that it can't be rape if the animal is clearly enjoying it, female animals enjoy sex just as much as humans do and are just as capable of having multiple orgasms from sex or foreplay, and will actively seek those who can give them pleasure.

Female animals consent in their own ways just like they would with a male of their own species, learning their body language is a must for any and all lovers of female animals, and equines and canines are perfectly capable of saying no and enforcing it, my mare could easily cripple or kill me with a single kick yet she is the one who starts our sexual activities more often than not.
 
Courier said:
With my limited knowledge you can’t understand if an animal, whether male or female, consents to you penetrating/breeding it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. :D Female animals can consent to sex just like male animals can.

How a female dog expresses consent with body language

Flagging (normally they do this behavior in standing heat) is how a female dog expresses that she is willing and ready to mate with a male, lifting of the vulva and tucking the tail off to one side are clear signs of consent, it is part of the k9 body language, they are absolutely capable of...
www.zoovilleforum.net www.zoovilleforum.net

How does your dog show they're wanting sex?

[Leaving the thread up, but deleting the text, as requested.]
www.zoovilleforum.net www.zoovilleforum.net

Courier said:
But for male animals penetrating humans? I really don’t understand that. How is it rape if the animal is penetrating a person and having sex with them on their own, as in the person is not forcing them to do it?
Click to expand...
If you look at porn more broadly not just penetration it can be rape. I have seen (and reported) videos where animals are clearly raped. But the argument that sex with animals is rape is not taking this into consideration. In fact the argument is not taking the possibility of an animal giving consent into consideration at all.
The argument is based on a simplified view of animals as "innocent children" and "biological automatons" that only perform actions based on instinct and similar BS that has nothing in common with reality.
 
I think the first hurdle is simply, can they enjoy it, and the clear answer should be yes. After that it gets more complex...

For male animals, the argument typically revolves around the intelligence/power dynamic... even though they might enjoy it, you are knowingly taking advantage of their innocence or biological drive, and the drive can be so strong you can damage their penis and they keep going anyways (dildogging/oral till raw, horse penis bending in half).

For female animals, the argument typically revolves around coercion/toleration... they might allow it, but are not actually enjoying it or just want the sweet grain/food you gave them before playing, or only allowed it because they felt they had to please you and enjoyment is irrelevant, or even just they are in heat and you are taking advantage of a biological drive.

Years of domestication can also play into the "agreeability" argument... where a wild animal would probably not let you do anything at all, and taking advantage of selective breeding is the only reason you even had a chance.

There are the common arguments I have seen.
 
Part of the reason in my view is circular reasoning. For example, if something is rape, it is therefore bad. Most would agree with this, I hope.

However the 'logic' often used is "I think this is disgusting, therefore bad, therefore rape". It's not an argument that stands up to scrutiny, it's an attempt to justify their reaction.

It's also really uncomfortable for a lot of people to consider the idea that an animal might consent to, or even solicit and enjoy sex. Sure there's all sorts of nerve endings, a clitoris, and mammalian physiology is broadly the same but WHOA HOW CAN YOU SUGGEST THEY ENJOY SEX.

What I've always found interesting is that society deeply cares about what animals can and cannot consent to. Just not: shooting them, performing medical procedures, killing them, eating them, animal research, the list goes on...

Also, the people making these claims don't actually explain why an animal cannot consent to something, they automatically define it.

Short version: it's an attempt to justify their morality as superior to something they're not into. Not too much different to homosexuality. The problem is these people make the mistake of "I think this is disgusting so it's immoral and bad". Where I can see things that don't appeal to me, and say "this doesn't appeal to me", instead of "this is immoral because I don't like it".
 
EasterSurprise said:
Part of the reason in my view is circular reasoning. For example, if something is rape, it is therefore bad. Most would agree with this, I hope.

However the 'logic' often used is "I think this is disgusting, therefore bad, therefore rape". It's not an argument that stands up to scrutiny, it's an attempt to justify their reaction.

It's also really uncomfortable for a lot of people to consider the idea that an animal might consent to, or even solicit and enjoy sex. Sure there's all sorts of nerve endings, a clitoris, and mammalian physiology is broadly the same but WHOA HOW CAN YOU SUGGEST THEY ENJOY SEX.

What I've always found interesting is that society deeply cares about what animals can and cannot consent to. Just not: shooting them, performing medical procedures, killing them, eating them, animal research, the list goes on...

Also, the people making these claims don't actually explain why an animal cannot consent to something, they automatically define it.

Short version: it's an attempt to justify their morality as superior to something they're not into. Not too much different to homosexuality. The problem is these people make the mistake of "I think this is disgusting so it's immoral and bad". Where I can see things that don't appeal to me, and say "this doesn't appeal to me", instead of "this is immoral because I don't like it".
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Most people have a gut feeling against it and then look for reasons to justify this feeling even though the arguments don't make sense when you think about them. Sex with a dog or horse is rape because they do not verbally consent but for anything else we do to them we don't require any form of consent.

I think in the past a lot of this gut feeling of disgust and anger was driven by religious reasons but nowadays I think it's more because a lot of people see animals and pets as being like children.
 
While I am against abuse of animals I think the argument regarding consent is hypocritical as few of those using it are against forced sterilization or euthanasia on the massive scale that it occurs (And often cruel methods) or the livestock industry as a whole (which definitely needs reform in many areas - such as veal (I am not against eating meat btw but I strive to eat less of it) or the horse racing industry.
 
wolfish said:
While I am against abuse of animals I think the argument regarding consent is hypocritical as few of those using it are against forced sterilization or euthanasia on the massive scale that it occurs (And often cruel methods) or the livestock industry as a whole (which definitely needs reform in many areas - such as veal (I am not against eating meat btw but I strive to eat less of it) or the horse racing industry.
Click to expand...
and I forgot to mention hunting and especially trapping which I am not totally against hunting but trapping of fur bearing animals using leg hold and neck snare traps should be banned completely
 
wolfish said:
and I forgot to mention hunting and especially trapping which I am not totally against hunting but trapping of fur bearing animals using leg hold and neck snare traps should be banned completely
Click to expand...
and ban those horrible sticky traps for mice too!
 
wolfish said:
While I am against abuse of animals I think the argument regarding consent is hypocritical as few of those using it are against forced sterilization or euthanasia on the massive scale that it occurs (And often cruel methods) or the livestock industry as a whole (which definitely needs reform in many areas - such as veal (I am not against eating meat btw but I strive to eat less of it) or the horse racing industry.
Click to expand...
Society is one big self-serving hypocrisy meant to serve the humans not any other species
 
Martian said:
Sex with a dog or horse is rape because they do not verbally consent but for anything else we do to them we don't require any form of consent.
Click to expand...
That's what kills me. Consent only matters when it is sex, but removing sex organs is ok because it is "helping them" or any other reason they come up with. There are a myriad of other things that are seen perfectly fine, it is all about sex being something sinister in general
 
Courier said:
I’ve always wondered why people (non-zoo people to be precise) view animal sex as rape/non consensual

For male humans penetrating animals, I can understand. With my limited knowledge you can’t understand if an animal, whether male or female, consents to you penetrating/breeding it. So an argument about rape can be made here. But feel free to correct me if I’m wrong and there is a way to figure out if an animal consents or not.

But for male animals penetrating humans? I really don’t understand that. How is it rape if the animal is penetrating a person and having sex with them on their own, as in the person is not forcing them to do it? I don’t get why would people say this is rape if the animal clearly wants to do it and is enjoying its time.

I’d like to hear your opinions about it, in both matters.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. With a male dog, if a person is naked and they bend over for the dog, the dog isn't forced to penetrate them. He can choose to do it or walk away.
 
UR20Z said:
When it comes to vermin, dead is good, no matter how they arrive at that state. Whatever method makes them dead with the least effort on my part is all good.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that apply for humans also? This related to the Ukraine thread. Since each method is a different tool the same logic can be applied? I'm pointing this out because of the double standard between humans and animals of what is Humane and not.

It matters how they end up that way mainly due to afterlife stuff at the same time nobody wants to see a living creature suffer.
 
Reconscope said:
Doesn't that apply for humans also? This related to the Ukraine thread. Since each method is a different tool the same logic can be applied? I'm pointing this out because of the double standard between humans and animals of what is Humane and not.

It matters how they end up that way mainly due to afterlife stuff at the same time nobody wants to see a living creature suffer.
Click to expand...
When your meds kick in and you get back to something resembling rational again, try repeating the question. Until then, go back to your sandbox.
 
UR20Z said:
Like I said, when your meds kick in and you're capable of rational thought again, feel free to join the conversation. Until then, you're dismissed back to the sandbox.
Click to expand...
Like "i" said. You cant give me the "your not worth living" speech if you feel the exact same way to vermin.
 
UR20Z said:
Like I said, when your meds kick in and you're capable of rational thought again, feel free to join the conversation. Until then, you're dismissed back to the sandbox.
Click to expand...
Like i also say. When your meds start working come back to that with a clear head.
 
Reconscope said:
Like i also say. When your meds start working come back to that with a clear head.
Click to expand...
Like I said, when your meds kick in and you're capable of rational thought again, feel free to join the conversation. Until then, you're dismissed back to the sandbox.

(Hint, kiddo - until you start acting like a rational human being, that's all the reply you'll be getting)

(Note to self - set up a macro for it to save typing)
 
UR20Z said:
Like I said, when your meds kick in and you're capable of rational thought again, feel free to join the conversation. Until then, you're dismissed back to the sandbox.

(Hint, kiddo - until you start acting like a rational human being, that's all the reply you'll be getting)

(Note to self - set up a macro for it to save typing)
Click to expand...
Thats all the reply youll be getting?
 
upgrayeddd said:
Not sure all this has anything to do with sex with animals being rape, but do go on.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. He just doesn't know how to stop or have any apology. But yeah I will be relevant in this post...

its mainly to benefit society (hivemind reproduction thing) think YEARS ago where underage pregnancy was legal due to lowered lifespan expectancy because it benefited society where as opposed to bestiality (the general term) had no reproduction traits therefore was cast off plus the fact our food source could be 'tainted' due to this complication means that society had to make it as religious as possible to benefit humans in as a whole.

Long story short humanity is depraved and only looking out for the gains no matter the cost/morals when its survival is at stake. Its what we were taught and expected to do. In a way they are trying to seperate animals from humans (us vs them) so that we are willing to hunt them or farm their bodies in inhuman conditions.

I hope my answer helps
 
Last edited:
I think it's circumstantial. It's hard to explain consent with regards to animals but I think it's consensual when a male dog initiates the who thing, eagerly attempting to thrust his wanton dick inside me. If anything, dogs are more akin to rapists as they wont stop breeding me if I change my mind halfway through and try to back out of it, or if I'm in pain from his careless and brutal thrusts.
 
People like simple answers. And it's much easier to simplify something in which you have no personal stake. If you don't want to have sex with animals anyway, what does it cost you if you define it as always abusive? Nothing.

On the other hand, if you love animals and don't ever want them to be abused, then the perceived cost of permitting any sex with animals is that there will be some abuse of animals. So the simplest answer is to ban all sex with animals.

It is hard for many people to deal with the gray areas of life. It's much easier to reduce things to a binary and pick the less offensive of the two options instead of dealing with the complexities of reality.
 
Taboo Mother said:
I think it's circumstantial. It's hard to explain consent with regards to animals but I think it's consensual when a male dog initiates the who thing, eagerly attempting to thrust his wanton dick inside me. If anything, dogs are more akin to rapists as they wont stop breeding me if I change my mind halfway through and try to back out of it, or if I'm in pain from his careless and brutal thrusts.
Click to expand...
Guess that’s where the fun is though, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top