I wouldnt have sex with any dog female until she understands and trusts me. And knows that I am not going to kick her out afterwards.

not necesarily so... I am a newbie -but thanks to the thoughfulness of many of our experienced members I can look into the matter with deeper understanding... of course both parties involved need to be consenting -HOWEVER -a dog consents without the possibilities of reprecussions in mind -so even if the K9 is more than happy to particpate -you as the human need to factor in the outcome -what if this "stray" has a happy home and is just wondering about and you pick him/her up and have your way -then it goes home and displays unwanted learned behavior from your little one night stand -it could cost this innocent animal thier life -the animal is not capable of foreseeing outcome

every situation in life is different -I am not judging anyone who says yes or no by any means -nearly everyone -or at least most everyone I have met here are truely loving folks -it's just a reminder to think before you act...

But consider this... if you OWN a male dog now and teach it to have sex with you, "what if" you die and that male dog has a new owner? Now maybe he'll have those same "bad habits" and be killed by his new owner. Does that mean that nobody, even pet owners, should have sex with animals?

Well, that's what the SPCA would tell you, but I doubt that most on here would agree.

"What if" you *don't* have sex with that stray, and his owner, who's into beastiality and is borderline psychopathic, gets frustrated at his inability to perform and kills him? Then you are responsible for his death because you didn't give him the training he needed!

Of course this is a bogus supposition (it's intended to be transparently fake) which shows the danger of using "what if" as your compass for making ethical decisions. You can make up "what if" until the cows come home, but that doesn't bear any necessary relation to reality.

Focus on the harm (or lack of harm) directly in front of you, not the bogeyman. When you do that, the conclusion is pretty inescapable -- as long as consent is obtained and the animal is left in equal or better condition (including his living condition) to when you found him, there's no ethical problem. It's just a matter of personal preference at that point.

Of course, my argument has a gaping hole -- the consent of the pet OWNER. But this hasn't been discussed, I think, because we zoophiles are uncomfortable with the dichotomy of saying that pets are like people and should have the right to choose to have sex with a human, but on the other hand say that they are like slaves or children and have no right to make their own decisions. Either way we go on that argument, we're not going to like the answers. Either they're fully (but differently) sentient beings, just like us, and have the right to choose their own sexual destiny -- in which case, there are some SERIOUS moral problems with owning them like property, or they're like children -- unable to think and choose for themselves, and hence unable, ethically, to consent to sex. We're left with the unpalatable choice between zoophilia as akin to pedophilia and other sex crimes that involve taking advantage of the weak (which is what the Humane Society will tell you it is), or seeing pet ownership as a form of slavery (which is something PETA has been claiming -- but they're all a bunch of psychopaths, so who knows). Not very pleasant alternatives. From what I've read, most people seem to dodge that bullet by just ignoring it. It's the old "elephant in the middle of the room" trick.

This post has been edited by atomx on Mar 31 2005, 08:46 AM

I would hardly call taking into consideration the outcome of your actions "not bearing any necesary relation to reality" or chasing the "boogeyman." My propostion of outcome was not only possible, but probable according to a lot of experienced people I have spoke to concerning the subject -and by your own admition -your propostion of scenerios were far-fetched -certainly not probable or grounded -and sounds like a stab in the dark at justification...

but reguardless

I clearly stated that I am not here to judge anyones stance on this subject -but I must retract -your total disreguard for bearing responsibility for your actions and the welfare of the animal is very scary and saddens me. :(

I thought that it was a given that as we discussed the subject that we all cared FIRST about the animal -and my previous post was just an attempt to have those caring people think out side of the box -to take things into consideration they may not have thought about -to hear someone defend a "you gives a :censored: about the outcome" is devistating.

I cannot help but, have fantasies of comming across a stray, as it could come up to me and ram me like there is no end.

However, it would be like a One night stand.

I feel hurt when one night stands happen to me all the time, with men and wemon: so if I did it, it would be like what others do to me...

Southflorida, taking the consequences of your actions into account is good. But unless you know the likelihood that a given consequence will occur if you act versus the likelihood that it will occur if you don't, you really can't use that as a basis for decision, as it's just, as I said, chasing a bogeyman. Anything might happen.

Every action has infinite potential consequences, both good and bad. That's a given, and if we used every potential consequence as a factor in deciding, we'd never act. We'd never make any decisions at all, good or bad.

If I go out for a drive, I might lose control of my car and kill someone. By your logic, I (and everyone else) should never drive because we might kill someone. But how likely is it? The fact that it's very unlikely to happen is why it's ethically acceptable to drive (or, in fact, do anything at all).

PROVE that dogs who are trained to have sex with humans are more likely to be injured as a result, and I'll 1. concede the point and 2. point out that this means that probably nobody should really be having sex with dogs at all (since you'll have proven that having sex with an animal (stray or not) is potentially harming it.) Do you really want to win that point?

And there, you've shown that you missed the entire point. Perhaps this bit of my post (that you even quoted) will clarify it:

I realize that my hypothetical psychopathic zoophile is farfetched. It was intended to be. That's why I said "it's intended to be transparently fake." It was intended to show the futility of playing "what if" when you simply don't know how likely the outcome is.

Perhaps you've missed every single post I've made on this thread stating that the animal's wellbeing comes before any self-interest; I can't see any other way you could come to this ridiculous conclusion. If so, I urge you to reread my posts rather than just make up things to try to attack. Note how often I use phrases like "the animal's consent" and "as long as the animal is not harmed" and so on. If that is something that you can translate into "[who] gives a [damn] about the outcome" then I have to suspect that we're not actually communicating in the same language, or that you haven't actually bothered to read what I've written.

In short, you have still failed to show how "doing" a stray, in itself, is harming the animal. You've shown one way that it could harm the animal, and if you can demonstrate that this potential harm is a likely outcome, I will concede that it's something that should deter a moral person from "doing a stray." I don't plan to "do a stray" whether it's moral or not, so it won't really affect me, but it will be interesting to know.

But you haven't shown that. You mentioned that "a lot of experienced people" think that it's likely. Okay, who? Can you name some names? Got any figures? Got any real-world examples where it's actually happened? Or is it, as you said, "far-fetched - certainly not probable or grounded?"

If you truly want to debate the point, you're going to have to do a bit better than "someone told me it might cause problems," and you'll have to do much better than simple insults.

Your argument seems to boil down to little more than a "think of the children" emotional argument -- all emotional rhetoric with no substance. You appeal to our kinder emotions (think of the poor, innocent animals) without making any effort to prove that the threat to the animals that you're warning against will actually happen. Yes, protect the children, and protect the animals -- I'm all for that! But protect them against realistic threats, not bogeymen.

This post has been edited by atomx on Apr 1 2005, 08:32 AM

Let me preface this by saying this posts is my attempt to put atomx and southflorida into a deep sleep (it's kinda long) so that when they awake they'll forget all about any disagreement.

I'd kind of say that maybe atomx and southflorida are talking past each other a little bit. From what I read into it, both of you have excellent points, and I personally don't think either one of you are "right" or "wrong" compared to the other.

Atomx said some time back that he probably would not "do" a stray, because there are all of the risks mentioned here. I wouldn't think getting caught with a stray is much more likely than getting caught with your own dog, so the concern must be over health issues and the welfare of the animal. At least that's what I'm hoping. The rest of the views seem to be more in the general cosmic sense of "is it wrong to have sex with any stray ever just for gratuitous mutual pleasure?". And he's right. We have to admit the answer is that it is a matter of individual choice based on the situation and both individuals. It probably is a very bad idea in most cases, but that doesn't make the concept wrong.

South, it seems like you're taking the more specific and individual look at what could happen in the worst-case scenario. And you're right. It could happen and probably would more than a few times. But that can't justify a blanket statement. It's one thing to take in a dog that obviously has had no care for some time and you know it's either a true stray or the real owners don't deserve it. Completely another to take in a clean healthy dog, say with some flattened hair where you could tell it was wearing a collar, hump it, and then either throw it out or wait for the owners to come pick it up. And I would actually clarify that in my opinion a "stray" in this discussion shouldn't even include an owned dog. Hopefully anyone who ever would get involved with a stray has the discrimination to realize what the right choice would be. But if you did have sex with a real stray, it probably never would have the chance to cause a problem later, which is another issue.

I've already stated that I wouldn't take one in for an evening (for any purpose), and release it back into the wild. My opinion is that as a person who has a kind heart (towards animals, anyway) I would try to give the animal a good home if able. If possible save it from the shelter (and a guaranteed surgery). If not, decide what is more important to you. Condemning the dog to celibacy in and after a shelter, or leaving it free to do what nature tells it and then get run over or shot. So like I said in my previous statement on the subject, I don't think the sex makes it wrong. Releasing the dog whether you had sex or not is the worse problem here.

I won't actually pass any other judgement on the sex thing, as far as unwanted behavior. I will ask a serious question here for anyone who has real knowledge of this. As I said above, some dogs would probably learn their "lesson" a little too well, and display unwanted behavior. How often has anyone experienced this, especially after only one or two encounters? I've had prolonged relations with two different male dogs, and neither of them have ever even once done anything embarrassing. All dogs are different, though, so I would like to hear some personal experiences if anyone has them to share. I'd really like to know a bit more about female dogs, since my guess is that they wouldn't be as embarrassing as a male dog. But again, I know next to nothing never having had an embarrassing dog.

As far as the ownership thing, I personally think that there is a way around the two lines of thought atomx described. No, animals aren't capable of managing their own affairs very well. We do need to feed them, keep them off the streets, and all that. The reason for that, though, is because they are animals that we have taken out of the wild and modified to our own ends. And that gives us a responsibility towards them. We can't just say "animals are people too" and throw our gates open. I think we are now responsible for giving them a fulfilled life, whatever that means. But while they aren't wild animals any more, they still are mature complex animals driven by hormones and instinct. Because of that, sex is a natural act for them. Being free from boat anchors like "morals", they are as South said free to act without concerns of the repercussions. Which means as long as there are no negative effects of sex (such as being put down for unwanted behavior), there is nothing wrong with it for the animal. On this site, that's kind of preaching to the choir of course. But I think this synthesis of the points atomx makes brings them above children and mentally disabled, while resolving the ownership and responsibility issue.

For those who skipped straight to the bottom, :lol: I'll ask my question again: what's your experience with unwanted behavior in dogs, especially after only a small number of encounters?


Friends??? :beer:

This post has been edited by Akitas4me on Apr 1 2005, 08:29 AM

Akitas, you make a really interesting point about the responsibility we owe towards animals as a result of domesticating them (even though it does smell an awful lot like "white man's burden" to my quickly skimming eyes).

But even so, having a responsbility towards a creature is not the same thing as ownership. Perhaps I'm a drunk, and I've injured you in a drunk driving accident. Perhaps you're disabled for life, and I'm now (rightfully) required to pay you money to keep you alive. This is just.

However, does this imply that I can tell you who you can and can't sleep with? At what point do we get the right to decide for another creature who it can (to put it baldly) screw? When does responsibility imply ownership? At what point can we say that "my choice overrides your free will?"

I agree with the responsibility we (humans) have towards our domesticated animals. But the only real arguments that hold water against why you shouldn't have sex with someone else's pet (besides the fact that, obviously, the animal should consent, and leaving out the still-undecided question of whether sex with animals, in itself, puts them at risk) are property arguments. You're doing something with somebody else's animal (note the ownership terminology) without their consent. But that just begs the question: do we (or can we) really own another sentient creature? Either we have to say yes, we can (which I rather violently disagree with :)), we have to say animals aren't sentient (in which case ANY sex with animals is borderline abuse), or we have to admit that we can't use ownership to determine who our pets have sex with.

Quite often when these sexual consent issues are brought up, sex is couched in terms of harm or potential harm; it's implicit in the argument that to have sex with a creature is to potentially harm it. If this were actually true, then yes, our responsibility towards the animals which you pointed out would include a responsibility to protect them from the harm of sex. But is anyone on here really trying to prove that sex with animals is the same as harming them? I would wager that that would be an incredibly unpopular argument here :)

Absolutely, friends. I am not personally involved in all of this, and regardless of the outcome, I am just arguing because I think it's a fascinating discussion. As you pointed out, I have no interest in "doing a stray." Even if you leave out the moral question, I think that it would be very unfulfilling and risky, so when you add the moral question back into it, my overwhelming feeling is "why even bother?" Maybe a fun fantasy, but that's all...

I have read all of this thread over and over and not just today -this is the only thread I have pinned in my personal profile -I have read all the previous comments MANY TIMES...

and yes Atomix you have repeatedly talked about the welfare of the animal PRIOR to sex and DURING sex -and even the immediate welfare the few minutes after -ie: water/food/shelter -but your comments clearly indicated that you were not willing to take the LONGTERM welfare of a stray into account after a one night stand.... or including your post that you probably wouldn't do a stray -that others shouldn't take into account the LONGTERM welfare of the animal -that it is chasing the boogeyman, as you re-itterated...

I am certainly big enough to say that I was probably a little to harsh with you in my last post -and I apologize -I was wrong to do so -sorry again, (and I mean that) but I still must stand that it's my opinion that taking the longterm consequences and welfare of the animal is IMPORTANT to ME -and I will continue to ask other members who are contimplating strays take it into consideration.

In this thread and in other threads you will find VERY EXPERIENCED AND RESPECTED members of this forum like BitchFool LadyR and Neece just for example -caution that it is indeed a life and death matter -and at least for ME -it would be erronous not to weigh thier valued experiences and words of caution with a lot of respect -so again I ask all to weight the longterm welfare of the animal before acting -then proceed as you see fit. I'm just proposing that it should be considered -and then I'm sure each member will act responsible -and make the correct decision for thier specific and individual circumstances.

Just to put my two cents in...

I would not "do" a stray, but I might take one home and either find its proper home, or if it didn't have one, I'd give it a home if I could. If it should later develop into a more intimate relationship, then so be it. If it had a home, but the owner seemed abusive, I'm not really sure what I'd do. The law treats pets as property, so I can't take the animal away because of the owner's legal rights to ownership. I might report the owner to the proper authorities, though, if I had some sort of proof.

Just my little blurb.

SouthF: it sounds like you want to just make assertions (like I don't care about an animal's long-term welfare) without any basis in evidence, and drop names ("important people disagree!"). While this may convince you that you're right, it far from convinces me, and frankly never will. I appreciate your apology, but frankly I wasn't really angry, just sort of disappointed. I enjoy a good debate and always get frustrated if and when things descend to the name-calling level.

I'm going to have to bow out of this one. We'll do that age-old cliche: agree to disagree. :mellow:

This post has been edited by atomx on Apr 2 2005, 10:25 AM

I was harsh -but I never "named called" -you accuse me of reading into things that are not there -and it appears that you yourself are indeed the one doing so. You clearly stated that taking the welfare of a stray into account after sex is chasing the boogeyman -on several accounts -I'm not reading anything except what you wrote -I have exaggerated nothing -so we can agree to disagree -and I too hold no grudge HERE -but your last statement on the DO PEOPLE DO THIS thread once again has me VERY SUSPECT of your moral -errr -or should I say your non-existant moral ethics... once again it REALLY SADDENS ME :(

I've never had any problems with my girls.Perhaps they liked to snuggle more than other dogs but that's all and people never told me this was disturbing them :D

also forgot to point out this discrepency in my last post -once again, you acuse me of not reading your threads, and it's the exact opposite -apparently you haven't even read your own! YOU ASKED!
Furthermore I have made no assertions -the ENTIRE conversation has evolved because you have made REPEATED statements that taking the welfare of a stray after a one night stand is "chasing the boogeyman" -you have REPEATEDLY made this statement -that's what this entire converstion is based on -and now "I am making assertions that you don't care about an animals long-term welfare"

:huh: huh? either you just want to be argumentative at this point -or someone forgot ye olde prosac the last few days......

learning bad behavior ????
what does that mean
i have known many dogs, some belonged to very good friends of mine, that knew exaclty what to try, and not because of learned behavior, but because they are male, just like humans they crave sex, they were not destroyed but taught just like any other training given.

one night stands ??? arnt all the f...ks a stray dog gets whether human or a bitch that they come across one night stands ????
the only time i have heard of a dog having a relationship or even marriage in some cases is when humans have put them in the situation, the first thing they would do if a bitch on heat appeared would be to run off and have thier little one night stand, its just nature at work, the rest is interfernce from us