Discuss what it means to be consensual.

F

Fists of Furry

Tourist
My partner disputes that sex with an animal can be consensual. I told them that if an animal exhibits no signs of emotional or physical distress and their temperament doesn't change, it's reasonable to infer the dog is not bothered. Moreover, if the dog initiate an act, it's definitely free game. I assume a study of dog psychology would help in assessing this stuff, but please give me material and arguments I can use to ethically justify zoophilia to my partner.
 
Everyone who spends time with dogs should learn what their reactions mean pretty quickly, or at least that's what I hope so. Dogs are very intelligent and social animals, and their body language provides so many ways to understand what they feel like.
When they seem nervous, bothered, or most importantly - uncomfortable and in pain, do not proceed. Simple as that. Give them time, get closer with them in non-sexual way. When they will see you as one of their kind, they will proceed, or give you good enough hints. That's quite easy for me, being interested in male canines. When he provokes me into playing and cuddling, or even start trying to mount me, that's itself indisputable sign of his consent and the fact, that he enjoys it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As you said in the first post, if the dog initiate the action, and/or isn't bothered by it, it's okay.
You can clearly see when an animal, especially your, is afraid or forced to do something
 
Knotty Paws said:
A dog humping my hand or choosing to make me his bitch is consent in my book.
Click to expand...
Ya pretty straightforward consent. See if two people were to nonverbally start touching each other and show obvious interest in one another it wouldn't be debated. Non zoos just use this 'consent' issue as an unfounded argument, they simply can't prove that ALL animals are uninterested in sex with humans, and that's 'fact' 🙄 There is endless porn that shows animals enthusiastically having sex with people. Even initiating said stimulation. The "animals can't consent propaganda" is solely because normal people don't like the fact that we "corrupt" an animals "innocence". Not that an intact fully grown animal doesn't naturally have sexual urges in the first place. People insist on denying that reality, and go on religiously castrating their animals, so how can they even begin to know the habits of an intact animal: the reality is that animals can have a sexual interest outside of their own species. Absolutely. Same goes for people. Its a part of nature. Such is An occurrence which has been documented dozens of times by scientists studying the animal kingdom. It's only "unnatural" and "dirty" if people participate in the act because society has been led to believe it is "an unforgivable sin, and harmful" by the religious and political asshats who run the 7 great continent's. Ahh if only they could see how many times dogs have straight up made moves on me. 100% undeniable consent when you have a dog persistently trying to mount you, or flag at you. But whatever everyone is entitled to have their opinions. I'll stick to straight up experience cause it's more logical and founded in tangible truth. With that said everyone is not however entitled to use their opinions to harass and belittle others. People tend to forget that it seems
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm guessing they argued a whole bunch, including that thing about zoonoses? If so, that means they've done a bit of ten-second Googling and have put their trust in some bad-faith sources.

Anyone who cares for animals gets a feel for their personality and intelligence. I don't know if there's a way to prove such a thing to someone who doesn't believe it. I've seen some really good threads on Twitter with great arguments and oodles of informative studies and professional opinions, but the usual Twitter kids remained unimpressed.

At this point, it'll probably rely on their opinion of you as a person. If you show that you're always putting the interests of your animals foremost, it'll be pretty obvious that you respect them enough to consider their consent. I think most reasonable people aren't completely against it, but rather are afraid of the sorts of people who would ignore a "no" if they can get away with it. If that's the case, it doesn't matter if an animal can consent, and those ill-mannered types are seen as a threat to any animal/child/woman they're alone around.
 
There are people who say that animals can not give informed consent, because they don't understand the consequences of their actions. But that way you are judging animals by human standards - not from the voewpoint of the animal. Nobody is talking about consent when it comes to mating of wild animals. For the animal it's not a big difference though.
Of course this is only true if the animal hasn't been trained. Animals can show very clearly how they feel about certain things, but they can also learn to suppress it. For example when I comb my dog and pull too much on his hair, he will surely nudge my hand away with his head. But when I then talk calmly to him and pet him somewhere, he will lay down again and let me continue. I can see that he's not happy but he won't make trouble for it.
If I see the same behavior in video with a bitch that is being penetrated - then that's not consensual in my eyes.
 
Oh for fucks sake. How many times? There are rules in this house. It is so simple. If I am naked, or anyone else, I/we are fair game. Our boys show consent fairly obviously and anyone that disputes it is a cock,.
Our dogs/boys show their consent. If they are not interested is their lack of interest enough to persuade the knobs that they disagree? Of course not.
 
MishaCZ said:
Everyone who spends time with dogs should learn what their reactions mean pretty quickly, or at least that's what I hope so. Dogs are very intelligent and social animals, and their body language provides so many ways to understand what they feel like.
When they seem nervous, bothered, or most importantly - uncomfortable and in pain, do not proceed. Simple as that. Give them time, get closer with them in non-sexual way. When they will see you as one of their kind, they will proceed, or give you good enough hints. That's quite easy for me, being interested in male canines. When he provokes me into playing and cuddling, or even start trying to mount me, that's itself indisputable sign of his consent and the fact, that he enjoys it.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Well said.
 
Hyran said:
There are people who say that animals can not give informed consent, because they don't understand the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking it through a lot, and I've come to some conclusions. Basically, humans have enough intelligence to make moral choices based on ethics. Animals aren't moral actors, and so there's nothing to do with informed consent. We aren't asking them to waive their rights for surgery or BDSM or whatever.
Instead, the ethical question is purely about harm. Disadvantaged humans can suffer harm when others have sex with them, which is why that's wrong. Adult animals are not harmed, if they agree to it (which is a kind of consent, but not 'informed') and you don't go hurting them for some reason.

In short, 'consent' means about three different things, which is why everyone is confused, and the 'informed consent' doesn't even come into play for humans unless you're into BDSM.

The law can override any personal moral judgement. This is important where the science shows harm can be done (like with children, everyone's favourite comparison), but it becomes a problem when it removes the animal's autonomy while utterly not protecting them from actual abuses like factory farming. It's important to note that the law is a reflection of our current understanding of ethics, and should change as our understanding changes.
 
I h
Fists of Furry said:
My partner disputes that sex with an animal can be consensual. I told them that if an animal exhibits no signs of emotional or physical distress and their temperament doesn't change, it's reasonable to infer the dog is not bothered. Moreover, if the dog initiate an act, it's definitely free game. I assume a study of dog psychology would help in assessing this stuff, but please give me material and arguments I can use to ethically justify zoophilia to my partner.
Click to expand...
The worst part is this: "Ask the animals, they're the ones being hurt, abused and ToRtuREd." I thought you just said you'd ask the animal. Is such fallacious logic.
 
10 years ago I purchased a puppy from the local classifieds, supposedly 6 month old great dane x bull arab. It turned out she was 8 months old.

Over the next year we learned to play around, it became obvious that licking her pussy and fingering her freaked her out but using my dick to stimulate her or have sex with her was fine. I worked out that male of the family that I got her from had forcibly fingered her and held her down to lick her when she was underage. At that age she had no concept of sex or good touching. They had a Malamute and and another large dog. I assume he was active with those and thought a great dane would be fun too. He had no concept of age or maturity being needed for sex.

So consent is an adult only concept even in animals. Brain development and physical development are key to sexual behaviour.

The observation that I like for consent is my Alpacas, if you lay them on their back for shearing they scream and spit and that is before you turn on the clippers.

If you roll an Alpaca on her back for missionary position sex she just relaxes and enjoys the sex. They consent to sex but not to shearing.
 
I saw this on another forum many years ago:
"We're freely allowed to enslave animals, ride them, wear them, eat them and pretty much kill 'em for fun, but heaven forbid we should pleasure them."

Another good piece of logic:
"You can't hurt a 2200 pound horse with a penis"

One of my partners and I agree that if something that's all muscle and sharp teeth doesn't consent, you go to the E.R. to be reassembled.

Every "consent" arguement is simply a manipulation by someone getting into your business they have no business being in.
 
Unless your partner is vegan, they have no say in anything to do with consent. Livestock are literally being raped over and over and forcibly kept pregnant until they collapse and then get sent off to be murdered. The dairy industry is even worse... The babies are stolen from the mothers, who will continue crying for the calf for days at a time. Non vegans who talk about consent are the most hypocritical of the bunch. They are literally paying for murder, rape, & torture.
 
Actually Veganism is the end of animal ownership or provision of land to live on. PETA is actively working to remove animals from the planet, if there are no animals then there can be no animal abuse.

Anti animal groups are not aware of the nutrition required for humans to live properly. The worse extension of this is when carnivores are told to live on plants alone. We see Vegan chicken feeds, Vegan Dog/Cat food. There is no such thing as a Vegan lifestyle, it is just a wanky activism for people to soap box on.

To stop animals breeding is to wipe them off the face of the earth.
 
Fists of Furry said:
My partner disputes that sex with an animal can be consensual. I told them that if an animal exhibits no signs of emotional or physical distress and their temperament doesn't change, it's reasonable to infer the dog is not bothered. Moreover, if the dog initiate an act, it's definitely free game. I assume a study of dog psychology would help in assessing this stuff, but please give me material and arguments I can use to ethically justify zoophilia to my partner.
Click to expand...
It would be helpful to know your partner's understanding of (1) what constitutes consent and (2) how exactly it matters and (3) why animals couldn't give it.

If, for example, your partner thinks that animals can't give consent because they do not understand some abstract concept of consent, then we could argue that the concept probably doesn't matter to the animal then either.

But if your partner thinks that animals can't consent, because they don't speak our language, then we could discuss body language and how humans also show consent by body language; we could analyze some romantic movies – how often do characters explicitly negotiate sex verbally and how often do they do it through body language and are we worried in the latter case?

If your partner argues that animals can generally give consent and it's actually easy to see when an animal is happily doing something, but they could not consent to sex with humans, because it's impossible that they would like this, then a demonstration of animals happily fucking humans could enlighten your partner.

If your partner argues that animals may seem to consent superficially (like "they do what they do due to instinct, not because of will"), but that it would not be informed consent, because the animals haven't yet and can't understand why what they do is wrong, then the issue isn't actually the consent, but that your partner thinks that it is wrong for those other reasons which the animal doesn't understand. These would need further inspection then.
 
Black_Unicorn said:
Actually Veganism is the end of animal ownership or provision of land to live on. PETA is actively working to remove animals from the planet, if there are no animals then there can be no animal abuse.

Anti animal groups are not aware of the nutrition required for humans to live properly. The worse extension of this is when carnivores are told to live on plants alone. We see Vegan chicken feeds, Vegan Dog/Cat food. There is no such thing as a Vegan lifestyle, it is just a wanky activism for people to soap box on.

To stop animals breeding is to wipe them off the face of the earth.
Click to expand...
The problem with ample hyperbole is that it hurts the credibility ... Animals can give consent and we respect that and PETA actually wants to rid the world of all animals ... That doesn't sound believable. Likewise, there is no such thing as a vegan lifestyle? Just sounds like you have lost the touch with reality.
 
Consent means equals to the amount of easiness into the act the creature involved into it. If no consent happens the creature pulls away slowly then escalates their strength per complication.
 
Saying a canine is unable to show consent, that they are incapable of showing, non-verbally, what they want, also poses the concept that they are unable to show, non-verbally, that they are uncomfortable with something. When I see a dog cowering in a corner, afraid of their owner, shivering in fear, for what they think their owner MIGHT do, I see a dog who is abused. A dog can clearly say "No I don't like this." It involves teeth, lowered tails, downturned eyes. ALL these signs of a dog who is not comfortable or happy with their situation.

Nobody has ever said a dog can't say "NO" That's a non-starter. So why is it such a leap to see a dog enjoying the idea of sex, when the pants come off, they bounce around the room, and you have to order them NOT to hump your leg? Is that not consent? Is that not a canine who wants that intimacy? When they start lapping at genitals without prompting or treats, don't they WANT that?
 
This topic always is interesting to me because of all the different aspects of it. I personally feel a closeness and a bond with my Shepard that I believe is based on consent and attraction. Although I can’t sit with him, have a cup of coffee and listen to him say that he likes to knot me, he does communicate in other ways especially non sexually.

we sit close, I love to pet him, rub him, we go for walks, car rides, we play, and he also mounts me. It’s part of our relationship.

I think that is consent, he initiates and that certainly is consent. Sometimes I entice like I might get on the floor and touch myself and that will get his attention or sometimes I will nuzzle at him or touch him. Still consent because he can always stop, ‘say no’. Just like I can say no if he is nuzzling at me or jumping at me and it’s an inappropriate time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top