is peanut butter rape?

[K_9River_rat]

In that way we are different. I just can't respect someone who defends this type of behaviour and worse. I also don't generally bite my tongue.

But your stance is, probably the high road. I just lost a lot of faith in humanity overall and have just given up the "customer service face" of feigned respect, too much work for me

I totally get what you mean there.

But I am new here and have to work off of the assumption that maybe she just hasn't looked at it from the other angles.

I would hope that she would read my words, and yours as well, and all the others, and decide to try to see this from our points of view.

From her point of view, she can't see what we do from here.

I'm trying to have faith that she isn't stupid, but just hasn't looked from all angles, because I can't see how one would not be able to see what we see from this point of view.

Now if she comes back and tries to flame anyone, then game on, because then she is only proving she is more interested in defending her point of view than wanting to do the right thing...

 

[Keke5050]

I don't think a doggy can give consent I think they are doing what mother nature has instilled in them and if peanut butter is applied then we all know a dog will lick and if you play with a dog enough they will know what certain positions or words mean and they will react ...all things living are sexual

 

[dogluver101]

After reading your replies, I would really like to point to my first response to the topic, so that I dont have to repeat most of it.

Everyone can think of countless examples in which you do something without the act itself being the motivation and its totally fine as long as nobody is forced (I guess thats generally agreed upon). Thats the whole idea behind training a dog or do you train your dogs by telling them about why you dont want feces on your carpet? So I just assume that you tried to repeat that it is "wrong" if (and only if) the act can be considered sexual for some reason...

So flowers just need to abuse bees? Jokes aside, I guess you propose that the "wrong if only one side considers it sexual" idea that you came up with should be extended to "[...], unless it helps creating offsping" ...not exactly the topic but you should be aware of how many plants do not actually rely on insects but they just offer some advantage over e.g. wind for pollination. Also, most things that we do for pleasure are not necessary (i assume for survival of the own species?). Are they thus not OK or is it again just about the release of dopamine or oxytocine being triggered by organs that are involved in reproduction instead of e.g. the skin on my hand like in my example that makes it something completely different for some reason that still want mentioned? Would also be interesting to know if nipples would then be "sexual" by that definition

Sounds like your "jacks" are terrible In this part you mix some things up: Yes, a dog can make choices and nobody said something different. It also is the dogs choice to lick a certain body part or not, no matter if you consider it sexual or not, it doesnt change it. All choices depend on incentives.

Your dogs are untrained? I dont think so But this doesnt add anything new.

Sure, lets throw violence into the argument as if we were debating anything related to it ...Because it makes for easy moral judgement, I guess. If you actually need to be remembered: the whole argument is about a dog being (positively) incentiviced to do something that you consider to be sexual but the dog does not.

Why have you changed it into having sex? Thats not really the question. Also, the dog doesnt want to have sex but then gets enticed ...so it now wants to have sex? But then its an opinion that should be ignored? If your girlfriend offers you watching your favorite movie together if you do the dishes, you are objectified because you didnt intrinsically want to do the dishes but got enticed?
Let me have a guess: "no its different because its sex!"?

Reading through some of the replies. I feel like all you have is weak insults.

What's the opinion on coconut oil? I always use it as a lube and my girl really likes the taste of it, she started licking the floor and naturaly found the source

You're not using the coconut oil inside of her are you? Water based lubricants is recommended for intercourse.

 

[K_9River_rat]

I don't think a doggy can give consent I think they are doing what mother nature has instilled in them and if peanut butter is applied then we all know a dog will lick and if you play with a dog enough they will know what certain positions or words mean and they will react ...all things living are sexual

If you don't think a dog can give consent, then why are you here?

Further, if you don't think they can give consent, I have to wonder how little interaction you have had with them.

No offense here, but the question of consent is about the ONE thing that all true zoos can agree on.

 

[JazzyPaws]

I don't think a doggy can give consent I think they are doing what mother nature has instilled in them and if peanut butter is applied then we all know a dog will lick and if you play with a dog enough they will know what certain positions or words mean and they will react ...all things living are sexual

If the dog wants to have sex then why do you need peanut butter..?

Peanut butter is a bait. You won't need it if the dog wants it and loves your natural flavor.

And if you don't think dogs give consent, you're in for a doozy of a wake up call reading this forum.

 

[JazzyPaws]

You're not using the coconut oil inside of her are you? Water based lubricants is recommended for intercourse.

I looked into this. Coconut oil is safe as a lubricant, and coconut oil is dog safe. I took a step back on that too, cause I'm water based or I use my males ejaculate

 

[cbrnth]

Would it be any different to telling a heroin addict you'd give them the drugs they desire, if they have sex with you?

 

[girlwithdalmatiangirl]

I appreciate the dynamic this conversation got due to my seemingly provocative reply

@JazzyPaws you got many things that i said wrong but i wont elaborate on that much, e.g. the "bad jacks" part was just a joke
Nevertheless, I still disagree with most of what has been said. First, I would like to emphasize again that it is useless to criticize incentivising wanted behaviour as not only everyone who has a dog does it but its essential for civilization in the context of human interaction. Second, wether or not one considers it to be sexual and thus all of a sudden "bad" or "deception" has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the dog but only your own subjective feeling. Of course I understand how one might get the idea due to culturally established values but this has no general applicable meaning. You must use your own intellect at times. My dog could lick my toes because 1. she likes the taste for some reason or 2. I put peanutbutter on them and she likes that taste. I also might enjoy it because 3. It gives me a foot massage or 4. It gets me aroused and makes my genitals tingle. In one example I incentiviced it and in the other not. Also in one it was for sexual purposes and in the other not. Does this mean one is bad or one combination is bad or all is good? All that matters is the effect on me and the dog and she would not mind it at all in any of the example combinations. Me feeling guilty or whatever due to it being sexual does not change anything about that, thats about myself and not the dog! If you dont want to do it because it makes you feel bad: dont do it. If it makes your dog feel bad: dont do it. If it makes both of you feel good: do it. Being on one level or not does not change this either and you obviously dont care about it when you train your dog for other purposes either which already clearly contradicts that idea. Also, it is something that usually is not even the case in human interaction. I would also like to encourage you never to argue with "what might the broad majority think of it" . History has shown that this is often a pretty bad idea and definitely wont help with progress. The examples of both being"better off" but actually are not like me harming you or not or giving an addict drugs are not changing anything about it because the examples are just wrong. You have a status quo and then ask wether it makes both better off. Negative deviations from it that keep the same relation or long term harm are obviously not making one better off. I am also a bit disappointed by some of the people commenting: you can do better!

TLDR: Your own emotions or ideas of ethical behaviour are usually a good guidance but it is not an argument, depends on the person, time, and culture and obviously cant reliably tell us what is right or wrong. Use your own critical thinking to find out why you think of something a certain way. If it makes both you and your dog happier it does not matter if its for hygiene, safety or sexual reasons.

 

[Stash]

how about yes and no on options to choose

 

[JazzyPaws]

I appreciate the dynamic this conversation got due to my seemingly provocative reply

@JazzyPaws you got many things that i said wrong but i wont elaborate on that much, e.g. the "bad jacks" part was just a joke
Nevertheless, I still disagree with most of what has been said. First, I would like to emphasize again that it is useless to criticize incentivising wanted behaviour as not only everyone who has a dog does it but its essential for civilization in the context of human interaction. Second, wether or not one considers it to be sexual and thus all of a sudden "bad" or "deception" has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the dog but only your own subjective feeling. Of course I understand how one might get the idea due to culturally established values but this has no general applicable meaning. You must use your own intellect at times. My dog could lick my toes because 1. she likes the taste for some reason or 2. I put peanutbutter on them and she likes that taste. I also might enjoy it because 3. It gives me a foot massage or 4. It gets me aroused and makes my genitals tingle. In one example I incentiviced it and in the other not. Also in one it was for sexual purposes and in the other not. Does this mean one is bad or one combination is bad or all is good? All that matters is the effect on me and the dog and she would not mind it at all in any of the example combinations. Me feeling guilty or whatever due to it being sexual does not change anything about that, thats about myself and not the dog! If you dont want to do it because it makes you feel bad: dont do it. If it makes your dog feel bad: dont do it. If it makes both of you feel good: do it. Being on one level or not does not change this either and you obviously dont care about it when you train your dog for other purposes either which already clearly contradicts that idea. Also, it is something that usually is not even the case in human interaction. I would also like to encourage you never to argue with "what might the broad majority think of it" . History has shown that this is often a pretty bad idea and definitely wont help with progress. The examples of both being"better off" but actually are not like me harming you or not or giving an addict drugs are not changing anything about it because the examples are just wrong. You have a status quo and then ask wether it makes both better off. Negative deviations from it that keep the same relation or long term harm are obviously not making one better off. I am also a bit disappointed by some of the people commenting: you can do better!

TLDR: Your own emotions or ideas of ethical behaviour are usually a good guidance but it is not an argument, depends on the person, time, and culture and obviously cant reliably tell us what is right or wrong. Use your own critical thinking to find out why you think of something a certain way. If it makes both you and your dog happier it does not matter if its for hygiene, safety or sexual reasons.

I stand by what I said.

If the dog wants to lick your genitals, you won't need bait to make it happen.

It really is that simple.

 

[NoloContendere]

The pleasure's an intentional side effect, you're not exactly training them to lick you rather you're feeding them and benefiting from being the serving platter.

 

[Suvrenim]

the real question is... is a dog licking your genital even considered sex? sure if you reapply the pb enough times you might get satisfaction, but the dog is more likely to eat it all up in a minute or two and then beg for more. i doubt the dog even cares WHERE the pb is, he just wants it. now if you are trying to force him to lick there on purpise thats a different story.

in general, i agree the act itself is a deception, but when you put the pb there because you know the dog wont lick otherwise it is rape. foodplay is one thing, decieving an animal to lick you in order to get off is another.

 

[Caniform]

It would only be rape, if the dog would be forced to lick the peanut butter or if the dog considers the licking of the body part to be a sexual act that the dog rejects to perform, yet is denied the chance to realize he is performing it through trickery. But the dog isn't forced to lick the peanut butter. It's his choice. The dog will also usually see where the peanut butter is. If he licks anyway, he probably doesn't interpret it as sexual or it doesn't bother him (enough) that it is. You could argue that the dog is so distracted by the peanut butter that he really doesn't realize what's happening as long as the peanut butter is there. But that argument would only work for the first time. When the peanut butter is licked up, he should be able to realize where he just licked and should not be fooled a second time. If he resumes licking when peanut butter is applied again, he knows what he's licking and still choses to do it. So he is not raped.

Is it consent? Actively licking peanut butter from that body part pretty much implies consent to licking peanut butter off that body part to the degree that dogs are capable of giving consent. It doesn't mean that the dog understands or endorses whatever may happen in the mind of the human during that act, but that's not necessary. So it's probably not consent to sex, but at the same time it's probably not sex for the dog in the first place. So that's a non-issue.

Is it deception? The dog thinks he gets to lick peanut butter and he gets to lick peanut butter. Doesn't sound like deception to me.

But yeah, it's not a mutual sexual experience on a level playing field. It's not making love.

 

[labsareawesome]

Well, I never knew! It's hard to wrap my mind around this. So every now and then if I'm hungry, I'll dip a spoon in a jar so I can eat some creamy felony?