So, the main thing i think most people are thinking about as why this is wrong, is because of the idea that it seems impossible for an animal to give consent because we can't literally ask them.
In your scenario of how a male dog could fuck a human out of its own free will, and i think you are implying that it is consenting in that scenario, one problem with that shows when comparing it to human males.
Sometimes when men are raped, the perpetrator says that he wanted it because he was erect and even ejaculated--therefore he consented--but this is wrong. A physiological response is not consent. Women too often have positive seeming physical responses during rape like being wet and even reaching orgasm, but that has nothing to do with consent or how the experience will psychologically effect the person after.
I would even go as far to say that if someone took advantage of a man's sex drive, by putting him in a situation to be able to have sex with them when they know he is super horny, even if he would have said no if they asked him before hand, and he has sex with them. I'd say that is a very grey area of consent. Not clear consent.
So that whole scenario with presenting yourself to a horny male dog to let them "choose" to fuck you already is not clear consent at all to me.
And that is all before getting into the part where a human and dog cannot be on the same intellectual level. There are things you know that the dog can't know. The dog can't know even if you explain it to them, because they can't talk.
That unequal ground is the same reason that children cannot consent to sex. Even if they say they do. The unequal ground that the two participants stand on makes true consent impossible.
Another example like the one I gave above, would be presenting yourself to a young male child who is aroused, and allowing them to have sex with you. You could say the same thing in that situation, that they have free will. But it breaks consent.
I understand this, but since dogs are not human, do you think that it actually traumatizes them ? I mean, comparing dogs to a human child- just because some humans like to think of dogs as their children, does not in any way shape or form mean that adult male dogs have a similar psychology to children like at all, In my opinion humans are just weird and try to personify dogs from my perspective but.... They're dogs
I understand that dogs are not actually equivalent to human children. But one thing that they share is that they are both not on the same intellectual grounds as an adult human, which is what causes the consent issue.
And because we cannot literally ask a dog yes or no, nor do they even understand the question, means they can never give 100% true consent.
I think that your question is worth asking for the sake of thinking about it though.
Like, with all that I've said, does that mean a mute person cannot consent? They could communicate a yes through writing. But what about a person so disabled they cannot give clear communication through any means. But if they are an adult and have sexual desires, would it be wrong to take aware their freedom to have sex? That seems tricky to me. Because they cannot communicate consent, it would always be in a grey area. Say they had a partner who jacked them off whenever the disabled person was physically aroused, and they never showed signs of discomfort in their face (which they would be able to do in this context). Its just such a grey area.
Reminds me of the story of the woman who i think got arrested because she was jacking off the dolphin who fell in love with her or something?
yeah because of their inability to give consent extends to all areas including like, can they truly consent to being pets and so on............ can the consent to being fed and groomed and bathed and forced to spend a ton of time in a kennel, or outside chained to a tree and so on, people can treat their pets pretty horribly but even if they were treating their dogs well, did the dogs truly give consent to become pets ?
so from my perspective because I do not see animals as deserving of abuse, like ever, I have always been very anti animal abuse no matter if I have a close emotional connection to the animal and think that it is cute or not, I do recognize their ability to feel pain and fear and sorrow and become traumatized, so my question is more Is it potentially traumatizing for a large adult male dog to lick a human female's v***** and potentially ejaculate inside of her ? And I cannot genuinely answer that this would be a traumatic experience for the adult male dog but I will leave a possibility for being confronted by some convincing evidence that it could potentially traumatize the adult male dog lol :p
I think that is is wrong for humans to keep animals as "pets" period. So i would say no they cannot consent to being a pet. I think humans can be friends with animals but i think everything we do that takes away their choices is wrong. Like keeping them in cages and even building the relationship with a kitten or puppy of feeding them from a young age so they don't learn how to hunt for themselves is wrong imo.
The thing about communicating with animals is complicated because as i keep saying a dog cannot give clear, true consent because they cannot say yes or no, it is obvious that we do have some communication with animals. When they go by the door and look at us we know they are asking to go outside. And i don't have a lot of experience with dogs but cats even form a kind of language of meows with their owner where a specific sounding meow means a specific thing, like wanting food versus wanting pets.
A bad person could use the argument that we don't know what an animal is thinking because they cannot talk to excuse physically beating an animal. Animals scream and cry and show obvious signs of discomfort and fear that most people can easily read, and to say that an animal is not communicating how they feel about something in those instances would be wrong.
Although i see that it is possible a male dog would not be traumatized or bother by having sex with a human, technically by its own will, we can never know for sure because we can't ask. So no matter what the consent is in a grey area, and the risk that the dog could be traumatized is always there. Which i think because the human is the one who can be aware of this issue at all, is responsible for that risk.
I would compare it again to the fact that a child, especially between the ages of 13-16, could think they are consenting to have sex with an adult (like someone over 25), and even not be traumatized even though they were technically raped. But there is obviously a high risk for trauma there, and the younger person can't fully understand that or be responsible for it.
This is a little complicated because in BDSM there are rules you follow to make sure people don't get hurt. One of those rules are RACK, which is Risk Aware Consensual Kink, which allows adults to consent to doing things even when there is a risk for physical or psychological harm. They are consenting to the risk. But a dog cannot consent risk because they can't understand the concept of RACK. lol
I guess my conclusion is that it is irresponsible to fuck dogs. Or let them fuck you.
