How do you guys determine what consent is?

Hello, from my last post I still am not sure if belong here, but I think I will stay at least a little unless you want me gone. Ok so as someone related but not exactly like most of you I don’t know a lot about how things work here, even on a basic level. One huge question I have wounded is how do you guys determine if your partner has consented, I remember seeing a post where someone was chastised for coercion so their is obviously a standard, although I will not use this information personally (see last post as to why) but I am really curious.
 
It's one of those problems that's both very simple and highly complex at the same time.
If your partner is an active and willing participant it's usually simple, they know what they want and they're willing to engage to get it. It can be a little more nuanced with female non-humans, but it's not difficult if you're paying attention. I'm into dogs, so that's what I'll speak about. They have their own communications, some of it body language, you have to know the species you're interested in to have good luck so you know what signals to send to get the idea across easier. With bitches a pretty reliabile indicator is her moving her tail aside to allow access to the vulva, for example, but just as with humans there isn't a single signal that means all is OK and she can change her mind later. She might be fine with you touching/licking her vulva, but not OK with penetration, so it's important to stay alert and keep communicating with your partner.
 
 
My last question here was how you guys would determine consent of your companions, after thinking about it for a while I Realized something, that is THE MOST IMPORTANT question. When it comes to those who are against you their arguments they fall into 3 categories, 2 are meaningless and are the same crap that is used against LGBTQ, only 1 can be considered to be a real argument. The 2 that are meaningless are the “because my religion says so” many religions say different things, just because YOUR beliefs go against it doesn’t make it universal. The other meaningless one is “it just doesn’t feel right/makes me uncomfortable” that’s not a real argument, no one is asking you to join them so as long as they keep to themselves it doesn’t matter. That leaves the last argument, and the only one with backing, the consent argument. The issue that most have with zoos is that they see all zoo acts as abuse, because if they can’t consent they are being taken advantage of. This makes the question of consent the most important question, if you are going to convince anyone that you guys aren’t evil, you will have to make the consent argument as strong as possible, the stronger the argument the more people you can actually convince as long as they are willing to listen, but if the consent argument is weak then they may become more against you guys. So the question I asked turns out to not just be a curiosity from a partial outsider, but a question so important everything hangs in the balance of the answer.

I will not mention how I feel on this subject, it’s irrelevant, this is just about the importance of the issue.
 
You're making the mistake of thinking we care about what non-zoos think of us. Very few of us care at all.
Only a very tiny percentage of us care about acceptance, or even legalization. We know the hazards of "spreading the message of zoo around" are many. You won't find many of us jumping on that bandwagon.
 
Thank-you to mods for moving the thread. I was about to suggest the guy argues consent on one of his own threads, or one of many others with the same topic. Good move.
 
I find it hard to believe even non zoos dont look at a horny male dog, willingly mounting someone and in good faith claiming that isnt consent. Most non zoos assume we all force our dicks into holes whether or not the dog wants it. So thsts a problem with their perception 100%. The problem is not with zoos who understand canine body language can convey what they cant say, since you know, animals dont talk. They communicate in other ways.

Smell is obviously the biggest one for dogs, and our "sex smells" are not that different from a dogs. Is it really not consent when a human is "giving off" a scent from a wanting vagina or butt and so they act upon it?
 
It's impossible for me to care any less about how non-zoos feel about us, I do not want nor need their approval or validation to live my life as I see fit. What happens in the barn is none of their damned business.
I wish I realized this way earlier. Spent a few years at the beginning actually trying to reason with people online. Why did I give a shit lol. Me and my mate are happy, thats all that matters.
 
The consent problem has been solved. It has been demonstrated that animals will ask you for sex once you become a viable outlet for their sexual needs. Any zooophile can demonstrate it to you live in person. It does not matter whether you are male or a female or a pillow and it does not matter whether the animal is a male or a female. Sex feels good and you are a convenient masturbation station.
An animal asking you for sex is a consent and you can actually not consent and the animal gives up. So the consent goes both ways.
The current issue is not consent, but that having sex with an animal "is against the nature" and we are back where we started, because unless we move past this, nobody is going to listen to anything about consent.
 
The consent problem has been solved. It has been demonstrated that animals will ask you for sex once you become a viable outlet for their sexual needs. Any zooophile can demonstrate it to you live in person. It does not matter whether you are male or a female or a pillow and it does not matter whether the animal is a male or a female. Sex feels good and you are a convenient masturbation station.
An animal asking you for sex is a consent and you can actually not consent and the animal gives up. So the consent goes both ways.
The current issue is not consent, but that having sex with an animal "is against the nature" and we are back where we started, because unless we move past this, nobody is going to listen to anything about consent.
(I took a few of his sentences on his newer, closed thread as edging toward mass acceptance and trying to make reasons for it. I might have been mistaken.)
 
It's important to not lose track of the fact that consent isn't a problem for just zoos, it's a problem for everyone who is caretaker for a non-human.
Consent isn't only important in regards to sex, but nothing else, it matters when considering veterinary options, feeding, and so much more.

In dealing with non-humans, sometimes we have to make decisions that are in their best interests regardless of what the non-human might express.
A dog that's afraid of the vet still needs routine care and preventatives, sometimes as compelled by law, and it must be administered regardless for their best interest, for example.
 
It's important to not lose track of the fact that consent isn't a problem for just zoos, it's a problem for everyone who is caretaker for a non-human.
Consent isn't only important in regards to sex, but nothing else, it matters when considering veterinary options, feeding, and so much more.

In dealing with non-humans, sometimes we have to make decisions that are in their best interests regardless of what the non-human might express.
A dog that's afraid of the vet still needs routine care and preventatives, sometimes as compelled by law, and it must be administered regardless for their best interest, for example.
There are things like a vet that an animal usually can not understand and can not consent to. Although there are exceptions of animals asking for help.
But sex is simple, it is the oldest thing animals have ever done. :D And it is important enough that animals ask each other for sex and then either have sex or refuse to have sex.
So in my opinion consent can not be discussed globally but within the capabilities of the animal and the situation.
 
There are things like a vet that an animal usually can not understand and can not consent to. Although there are exceptions of animals asking for help.
But sex is simple, it is the oldest thing animals have ever done. :D And it is important enough that animals ask each other for sex and then either have sex or refuse to have sex.
So in my opinion consent can not be discussed globally but within the capabilities of the animal and the situation.

Agreed, but I brought it up because few seem to care about consent when it comes to spay/neuter or so many other subjects, just when it involves sex. I think consent is and should be important to zoophiles, but typically when brought up by non-zoos the consent argument isn't about consent, it's about muddying the waters...it only seems to matter when it comes to sex as it's completely ignored in almost every other instance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The consent problem has been solved. It has been demonstrated that animals will ask you for sex once you become a viable outlet for their sexual needs. Any zooophile can demonstrate it to you live in person. It does not matter whether you are male or a female or a pillow and it does not matter whether the animal is a male or a female. Sex feels good and you are a convenient masturbation station.
An animal asking you for sex is a consent and you can actually not consent and the animal gives up. So the consent goes both ways.
The current issue is not consent, but that having sex with an animal "is against the nature" and we are back where we started, because unless we move past this, nobody is going to listen to anything about consent.
I understand why you don’t care, there are those you shouldn’t care what they think of you many people really will never change, nothing will ever convince them, brain scans could prove without a doubt how the animals felt about it and they wouldn’t budge as that was never what was important. However, that’s not what I have seen from most as a simi outsider, have you ever heard Martin Niemöller's quote, with no allies, if/persecution comes for you no one else will be there to stand in their way with you. I don’t think most agree that the question of consent is answered, being someone most don’t know about my own feelings, I see what people think of you quite a lot and for every time I see someone saying that it’s unnatural I see 10 that talk about consent. I have Noticed zoos are unfairly put with pedos, to most people they see them as the same kind of thing, people who take advantage of those who can’t consent. With people seeing zoos the same way as pedos many actually support any persecution of you. Wouldn’t it be better if it was zoos and their allies vs anti zoos, instead of zoos vs everyone else? This is why I say the question is important, because it can literally change everything for you, you all already have to stay on the down low in most places, but with so many seeing you as little if any better as the zoosadists it can get so much worse so quickly, and no one would come to help you. They don’t need to join you, even like you. And it’s not like everyone has to accept, that’s stupid to think that would happen anytime soon. Many will never accept you, no matter what the result of the consent argument is, but I know from my own experience as a semi outsider just how nice it is to have outsider allies, and watching the LGBTQ rights movement just how much they can change things.
 
Back
Top