Zoophilia and Pedophilia

This is another topic I touched on in another post, a long time ago, but given the amount of discussion I've had on it recently I feel I ought to talk more about it.

Almost invariably, like some sort of sexual Godwin's Law, when debating with someone about the morality of zoosexuality my opponent will claim that zooerasty (or "be(a)stiality" as it is far more often termed, which as far as I'm concerned is like calling anal sex "assrape") is just the same as pederasty because animals, like children, have no concept of sex and are too uneducated to appropriately respond to it.

There are many arguments against this.  Most shouldn't be necessary: any ethologist, comparative psychologist, or animal breeder will know from study or observation that animals frequently proposition others for sex, have sex, react favourably towards sex, and eventually come back again for more sex.  Sex can even be used as a reward stimulus in Pavlovian conditioning.  Humans too.  And anyone with any knowledge of natural selection would surmise that if every animal on the planet apart from humans was not capable of showing sexual readiness, propositioning others for sex, and enjoying sex, then biodiversity would be very slim indeed.  And this enjoyment of sex is definitely not limited to same-species intercourse.

But let's assume correctly that these assertions are not enough for many people, who believe that the reason children should not have sex with adults, and therefore the reason animals should not have sex with humans, is because children do not have the mental capacity to understand it.  This is true, but what these individuals do not realize is that this truth does not extend to mature animals, and that this fact is readily observable.  The easiest way to find the onset of sexual interest is to examine sex hormone levels.  These hormones are necessary not just directly to the sex drive but also to the development of various somatic and neurological structures.  We can actually see a child's brain readying itself for sexual intercourse, and this does not take place until puberty.  The same goes for any mammal, and the chemicals (mainly estrogen and testosterone) and brain structures (especially the hypothalamus and other subcortical structures in the forebrain, such as the pituitary gland, nucleus accumbens, and caudate nucleus) involved are universal, with only slight changes to relevant structures and none suggesting any human exceptionalism.



There have been organizations of pedophiles who have suggested otherwise.  Perhaps most famous is the Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit) in the Netherlands, in existence from 2006-2010.  It advocated initially for a drastic reduction of age-of-consent and eventually its elimination, and it and other organizations have released pamphlets, for adults and children, with the suggestion that pre-pubescent youth can desire and even frequently proposition adults for sex.  Is this any different from what zoosexuals say about animals?

I would naturally argue that it is.  Active pedophiles tend to view entirely innocuous gestures as sexual proposition: an eight-year-old girl does a headstand and inadvertently shows her panties, or a six-year-old boy urinates at a campground, unaware or uncaring of his visibility.  Children themselves, of course, don't respond sexually when they see one another's undergarments, and even were adults to perform them, these gestures would never be recognized as sexual overtures.  The assumption would then have to be that not only are children capable of making such overtures, but have a far more complex social and sexual mind than do their post-pubescent counterparts that belies the fact that they may not get why peeing in public should be embarrassing.

It is sometimes suggested that prepubescent children masturbate or even engage in sexual conduct with one another, but this is a misrepresentation: while children may touch themselves, or touch one another in what is called "sex play" by developmental psychologists, these never result in orgasm, nor do they ever result in consistent sexual attention.  It is best regarded as exploratory, in the same fashion that a seven-year-old child who plays around with the terminal of a Linux box is not intending to learn to superdo his way into becoming a hacking sensation.  He's just curious about what's going on.

Animals are entirely different: the signals they give off, whether they be humping, displaying of genitalia, or other relevant actions, are unmistakably sexual in nature and could not conceivably be perceived to mean anything else.  As expected, animals respond sexually to one another when presented with these signals.  And unlike children, and like adult humans, they seem to benefit from consensual sexual intercourse physically and psychologically, whether their partner is of their own species or not.  It should be noted that there are many long-term physical and psychological consequences for victims of child sex abuse; indeed, the majority of individuals diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder are victims of child sex abuse.

Finally, there is the question of authority.  This, I think, is best answered with observation and common sense: while a child, even if he or she really does not want to do something, such as going to school, washing the dishes, or eating their broccoli, they will usually do so when told to by an adult, especially one with authority, such as a parent or a teacher.  This is because we as humans have a very developed social intelligence; we have language, we have culture as a result, and we have very complex social norms that often even supercede basic needs and conditioning: that child will eat his broccoli even if it makes him vomit later, because his mother told him to.

Anyone with an animal, on the other hand, even an animal traditionally regarded as very loyal, like a dog, will know that there are many things they will simply not do without a fight no matter how much they seem to dote on you otherwise.  Whether it be going to the vet, going outside when it's cold out, or swallowing a pill, their resistance is clear even if they eventually give in.  With animals such as cats or horses, this resistance is even more clear, and more likely to result in injury to your person.  While there may be a social hierarchy in the mind of your animal, then, the importance of that power you have over them is not nearly as important as their basic needs to not be ill, not be cold, or indeed, not be used or abused sexually.  Any animal, particularly a female, will make it incredibly clear that she is not in the mood for sexual intercourse, regardless of how much she loves you: as an adult, she knows what it is, and knows that now is not the time, and that knowledge is more important than any thought that you might take away her walk privileges.

Which brings up the notion that an animal will jump to these conclusions in the first place: we don't tend to punish our animals for resisting when we want them to go outside, or take a pill.  We just make them go outside, or take the pill.  This is of course different for children: "If you don't stop whining and eat your greens, you won't have TV for a week," isn't that uncommon of a statement.  Children are trained early on to do everything their parents, and other authority figures, want, for fear of punishment.  We are far more lenient on our animals, so why should an animal ever even imagine that should they not consent to sex with us that something bad will happen?  If anything, this is much more likely to happen with our (adult!) human partners, who have been educated socially to believe that sex is necessary for a stable relationship.  To imagine that animals have any such concept is, frankly, to afford them some very hefty intuition about how our modern human culture is organized.  This is not to say that we do not have some level of control over the lives of our animals, and therefore responsibility particularly to take care of them and to ensure they act appropriately in the public space, it is not to all the same extents as children with developing biology and views of the world.

That's the end of my argument.  This took a lot of time out of a day that maybe should have been focused on something that will be productive in my career or for my family, given the time of year (Happy Holidays, zetas & friends!) but given the discussion that has been happening recently, I really felt I needed to update the blog again.

I would just like to finish on one note: despite the abuse and lunacy propagated by the most visible of pedophiles, I believe the average pedophile is someone to be pitied.  The PNVD actually advocated for a ban of zooerasty in the Netherlands, interestingly enough, all the while proclaiming that they should be allowed to have sex with prepubescent children; however, the large majority of pedophiles are not only fully aware that pederasty is grievous abuse, but are indeed terrified and often traumatized by the idea that they may someday lose control and be perpetrators of such abuse.  They have nowhere to turn in our current social system, and even mental health professionals that are willing and capable of assisting pedophiles are few and far between.  So while it has nothing at all to do with zoosexuality, I would like to appeal to the readers of this blog to empathize more with those sad individuals who are cursed with a sexual attraction to prepubescent youth.  It is only through this empathy, and the resulting support, that these individuals can be helped, and thus child sex abuse prevented for the future.  Thank you.

Cambridge: Animals as Conscious as Humans

I'm about a month late to the show; summer is the season of the slowest transmission of academic information for reasons that are probably obvious, but:

"...the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

Link.

What else is there really to say but, "It's about damn time"?  This is less of a scientific breakthrough and more of a political one: the stuff brought up in this conference has been basic knowledge for quite a long time.  That's a good thing: it means that it's actually going to get around to public knowledge rather than get holed up in some journal somewhere that no layman will ever hear of let alone read - especially since Stephen Hawking attended the signing, and it was also featured on 60 Minutes.

So, it's a little early now, but what can we expect to get from this?  First of all, probably a slower rate of advancement in neuroscience and medicine in general.  This sounds like a bad thing, and it may be, but it will be as a result of more stringent regulations on animal testing.

Then again, it may also more strongly suggest that animal testing is more valid, meaning you will get the same level of advancement for fewer tests.  Wherever you go there are always people saying that you can't go off of just a few animal trials because animals aren't the same as humans.  This is obviously still true, but when it comes to psych and some areas of neurosci that don't explicitly involve the neocortex, we may start being able to get more for less.

Most importantly, we'll get public acknowledgment of the worth of animals as individuals.  It's unfortunate how many people you can come across today who don't believe animals really have thoughts and feelings; these tend to be people who either were never close at all to their pets or didn't have pets at all, in my experience, which is a growing percentage of the population with continued urbanization.

As I noted before, this conference is geared primarily as a social and philosophical change rather than a scientific one, so this, I think, is where we'll start to see the most change.  It will come slowly, and perhaps I'm jumping the gun just a little here, but I would hazard that the global and inevitably successful anti-anthrocentrist movement has already begun.  As it progresses, we'll see not only changes in the way people see animals, but the way we see the natural world at large: suddenly our non-human neighbors become far more important, and conservation becomes an issue.  Environmental decline could slow as a result.  Social things too, of course: with the acknowledgment of animal consciousness, animal intelligence is only a couple steps away, and with that the rights of zoophiles.

All this from one conference?  No.  But it's a start.  I like to be optimistic, because in my experience if you publicly assume that something is going to happen, people around you believe so as well and change their behaviour accordingly, so as far as I'm concerned this is just a big step towards all of these big transformations of society and academia.  Spread the word; save the world.

I don't know when my next post will be, but the moral of the story is that if you have some news or something otherwise fascinating for me to write about, I will drop everything to do so.  Good work, "lovingpegasister".

The Mish Posish

This post will contain some naughty pictures of animals.  It's nothing worse than you would see on a PG-rated production on the Discovery Channel, but if you're particularly sensitive on account of being on this blog, I totally understand.  If it makes you feel better, I find primates icky.

---

There's something I heard, again, a while ago that I kind of want to talk about now.  The first time I heard it, it was from a primatologist, and this statement is part of the reason I sometimes have difficulties with primatologists.  I have also seen it quoted online, though, in the years since bonobos became the animal of the day. (Now it's the honey badger.) The statement is, roughly, this: Bonobos are more sexually/interpersonally evolved than other animals on account of the fact that they have sex while facing each other.

Bonobos have only been identified as a species for a little over half a century or so, depending on who you ask.  They have only been intensely researched for a few decades.  Zoologists and comparative psychologists were of course astounded by the unique behaviour of the species: in contrast to their close chimpanzee relatives, they are quite nonviolent, females hold a lot of power, and they have lots and lots of crazy sex.  They have sex for many reasons: they have sex to calm everyone down, to build relations, or even to exchange favors.  They have sex with the opposite sex; they have sex with the same sex.  They have sex with their juveniles.  And, what was for some reason astonishing to researchers, they have sex in the missionary position.

The reason given was that because they are having intercourse face-on, it must add to the idea that sex in bonobos, like in humans and unlike in nearly every other animal, must play a very important social role and may even suggest a loving context.  After all, the face is the main outlet of emotion in primates, and we are a highly visual taxonomic order.  I say they are fascinated, "for some reason," though, because of this

this

and even this

Ignoring the fact that I probably have far too many pictures of lions at quick access, most ethologists would tell you that there isn't a whole lot going on between a male and female lion when they're doing their thing up to fifteen times a day.  Lions are also not terribly visual: they rely mostly on smell, like most mammals.  So what exactly is the deal here?

Well, as for why animals do it... we're not entirely sure.  Quite possibly, as it is with humans and weird positions, it's just a cool thing to do.  As for why some don't, though, or don't that often, it comes down to anatomy: if you've ever looked at a dog on his or her back, they're not quite as, erm, accessible as is a human on his or her back.  Any effort to make them more so would likely lead to at least some discomfort, particularly if you are a quadruped, with a quadrupedal spinal structure: you would need to have your entire body on top, pressing all the limbs that normally want to stick up back down, and things get way more complicated than is generally worth it.  In addition, a female is more prone on her back, and unable to escape.  A little more controversial, perhaps, but when you consider that rape seems much more common among apes, including humans, than quadrupeds, it may be that the missionary position developed to keep females safe and males "productive" among those species were rape is more frequent.

In any case, some primates in particular seem to have evolved towards the missionary position.  The spines of Old World apes are more erect.  Our limbs are very flexible.  Apart from humans, there is no animal that better exemplifies these crucial qualities than the bonobo.

On a side-note, and as an excuse for one more picture, have you ever wondered why human women have much larger breasts for their size than those of any other mammal?  It's not because of milk production: breast size has no impact on that.  It's not a conspiracy orchestrated by Playboy, either. (Or is it?) It's because they make a pretty great cushion in the missionary position, just as big butts do so in "doggy-style". (see Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape, 1967) And bonobos look to be heading in that direction.

So, is there something special about the missionary position?  Quite honestly, not one bit.  It's a side-effect of the anatomy that evolution has given us, and bonobos just happen to be on a similar pathway.  Sorry, bonobo fans.

Cat Sex

I was going to have this in the same article as last week's, but I decided against it for one very obvious reason.

This is definitely the steamiest post I have written here to date.  If you are not either zoo yourself or else are heavily desensitized to zoosexuality, please just skip this post.  It's for the zoos and the zoos alone.  Don't worry: I don't plan on making a habit of this, and we shall return to less romantic things next week.

---

Let’s give the queasy folks some space.  Here, I’ll be talking to you zoophiles who want to be more sexually intimate with your female cat but always heard it wasn’t possible, are afraid of doing it wrong, or have done it wrong.

Let me make it clear that penetrating your cat, male or female, does not work.  Don’t do it.  If you do, I will have to come to your place and shove a two-by-four up your ass, because that’s basically what it is.  What will be discussed here are tactile and oral stimulation.

Tactile stimulation – that is, fingering – is best done, in my experience, when kitty is lying on your chest and facing you, and you’re lying down.  This way, you can wrap your arms around her and be all romantic-like, and face her, and also keep an eye on her reactions because you are bigger than her and you don’t want to be making her uncomfortable.  This position also seems to be the most reassuring for your cat, who is given the real impression that she’s got the power here, and can leave whenever she likes - or lead you into a different position.  Mine will go from my belly to sprawling on her back on the floor to crouching with her butt on the air to crawling right back into my arms - important to remember throughout this article is that cats are all very different from one another and the best thing to have is a keen awareness of kitty's body language.

Before I go on, I'm going to assume you're a complete imbecile and tell you to ensure your hands are washed and clean.  So, first of all, regardless of what you're doing, foreplay is important.  It even occurs in nature, and it gets both of you ready both psychologically and physiologically.  Pet her, rub her, talk to her, give her her space for at least a few minutes.

It’s good to be petting/massaging/grabbing her scruff and scratching her rump simultaneously.  You can tickle the side of her tail to let her know what’s going on.  If she’s glad about that, her tail will be off to the side, her bum will be raised slightly, and her face will be a very happy one.  If you don’t know cat expressions, expect heavy eyelids and forward whiskers.

From here, your finger has access.  Which to use depends on how big your fingers are.  It’s best to start with the pinkie, because even it is going to be larger than a male cat’s phallus.  Experiment a little, though, very tentatively, because some queens like a bit of extra breadth.  Whichever finger you’re using, the rest of your hand should be relatively relaxed, wrapped comfortably around her rear, or over the base of her back.

What you are doing with that finger should be extremely tentative.  Because she’s on top, she actually has a lot of control, so starting out you really should be doing little more than just tickling her vagina.  Don’t do anything with the other opening unless she wants it, and she will show you this by moving it onto your hand.  Most cats don’t like it, and certainly not on the first time, and if you so much as brush it you’re going to be left alone on your couch or bed very quickly.  In any case, as you’re tickling, she may move back, she may move around, and your job is to exercise your empathic skills and get what she wants.  Does she want you to tickle lower?  Does she want you further in?  Zoophiles are some very empathetic people, according to one psychologist Beetz (2000), and this is why: we don’t have the luxury of someone telling us what to do while having sex, and we have very picky partners.

For this reason, don’t be upset if she leaves early.  Just stay put, or go the opposite direction as her.  You can see her again in a bit.  Don't worry about it.  A lot of cats will like to crawl around and stuff while having fun, and if you stay put or go she might immediately come after you wondering why you don't get the point.  In cases like these, you can chase her, put a bit of pressure on her back and continue on the ground.  As her arousal peaks you might find the almost masochistic resilience of a lot of female cats; some aren't satisfied towards the end of a round until you've got one hand massaging her neck and shoulders, and the other knuckling both holes as she holds her butt high in the air.

It’s kind of neat, because she knows exactly how to get you where she wants you to go, but if you actually try yourself, presuming she doesn’t hop away and hide, you’re never going to get there anyway.  She has the power, and inside you can feel her moistness, erogenous zones throbbing, her heart beating and her muscles drawing you in.  We don’t usually think of tactile stimulation as terribly romantic, but all this coupled with your other hand stroking her neck and back and her eyes gazing amorously into yours, it can be an incredibly rewarding experience.

Eventually, though, you’ll want to stop, or she will - if you’re good, and she’s having a good time, this might not be for a while - and after that, although you might think it best to give her a cuddle and mutter sweet nothings to her and all that, you actually want to leave her be for a bit.  You can sit around nearby, or even just stay right there, and she may well come back later from getting a drink to let you know that she appreciates it, whereas you might make her a little nervous and feel boxed in if you trail her or try to pet or cuddle her.  That’s just how cat sex works.  The moral to all of this is that everything is on her dime.

An interesting thing to note is that I know cats outside of heat, and even spayed females, who like a little tactile.  Of course, you have to be even more receptive and careful during this, but there can be mutual enjoyment even if hormones aren’t flowing.  I don’t believe I can in good conscience recommend this, because I just know some moron is going to read this and then think it’s A-OK to rape an undeveloped feline, but as a stupid youth I tried masturbating a spayed queen who belonged to my family.  She of course left, disgruntled, and I of course felt like absolute shit for not keeping my own hormones in check, this being at a time where I hated myself for even being zoophilic, let alone acting on it.  I left for a week, though, and when I saw her again, the first thing she did when I lay down on the couch was jump up on me and lower her bum right onto my hand, so we actually ended up developing something of a relationship.  Oddly, too, this little cat also liked her anus dealt with.  TMI, perhaps, but there’s a little story about cats and fingers.

Oral is tougher.  There are two ways I know of: either her planting her butt on top of your face, which seems to be something smart and forceful queens do, or else as she’s lying down on her side or belly (or back, or all over the damn room if she's like mine) and you’re lying next to her.  Anything else is too awkward, because she’s small and quadrupedal.  Many cats don’t want to have anything to do with oral.  And who can blame them, our mouths are disgusting.  Make sure to rinse very well.  And if your cat doesn’t want you going there, don’t go there.  Simple.  Maybe someday in the future.

Important: you should actually not brush your teeth or, for that matter, eat crunchy foods at all beforehand.  Either of these will cause tiny lacerations in your mouth which opens you both up to greater transmission of bacteria and other icky things.  I'm not saying this because oral sex with cats is particularly dangerous for either of you, I'm saying oral sex in general is kind of not really the most healthy thing you can do, even with humans.  So... if you're reading this and going, "Eh, I think I'll stick to humans," at least you can take home a lesson here.

Anyway, most of the things I say about tactile stimulation apply to oral as well.  To start, though, you want to give her a sniff.  This will not only let her know what’s up before anything actually happens, so she can decline if she likes, but it will also let you know what she smells like and are you sure you want to do this.  I would hazard that cats are... stronger than most women, although it’s just your tongue tip that’s going to have to deal with that, based on the fact that missing and accidentally getting her bum may be more palatable.  Fair warning given.  But of course, as I like to say, if you love someone, you love every bit of them: every way in which they stimulate your five senses.  So as bold adventurers, we press on.

I once read somewhere that if you want to become an expert cunning linguist, you can practice on a rose, trying not to ruin the flower.  If that’s the case for women, then perhaps we might say for a girlcat you might want to think of it as one of those tiny blue flowers.  Or foxglove. (I kid.) Cats are, as I have iterated, sensitive, and you just barely want to tickle to start out with.  You can eventually escalate, but do not expect to be able to shove your tongue anywhere.  If you’re using force, you’re using too much force.  And don’t forget to stroke her.

That’s all I have to say on cat sex, for now.  Hopefully you got something out of it.  And hopefully you didn’t get here by accident, ignored the warning above, and now look a little like this:

Now

Let's

Give

The

Rest

Of

The

Blog

Some

Space.

Good luck to you and yours.

How to Help Your Horny Girl Cat Without Being Gross

A little while ago I talked about neutering your pets, and specifically, why you shouldn’t do it.  It’s been one of my most successful posts so far, so I’m doing a bit of a follow-up.  In that post, I said that there are means of satiating your female cat who is in heat without being gross.

One thing to remember here, first of all, is that all cats are different.  There are differences in sensitivity, so yes, you’re going to have to be incredibly careful, very observant of responses, and willing to take some time to experiment.  One method or the other may not even work at all.  Just as importantly, kitty may not even want to have anything to do with you, period, in which case, you’re SOL.  Build your cat’s trust, spend some time with her, and then come back.

Assuming, though, your cat is OK with (or, more likely, is highly anticipating) your approaching her tail-end while she’s in heat, scratching her back… when you try petting her, especially if it’s her first heat, or you tend to avoid her while she’s in heat, or if she’s just that sort of cat, she may lash out at you.  This is pretty normal, so long as she doesn’t turn away and glare at you, in which case, yeah, trust, liking, etc.  More likely, though, she will immediately go back to flipping around and doing stupid horny cat things again.  She’s basically testing you, and you’ll need to persist a few times more in this case.  I can’t stress enough, though: if it’s clear she isn’t just testing you and seriously just wants to have nothing to do with you, see last paragraph.

The first method is beating your cat up.  OK, I’m joking, mostly.  It’s definitely the simplest of these two methods, the safest, and the most difficult to screw up.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work with all cats, and it may take a bit of experimentation to figure out exactly how to do it.

What you’re doing is basically coming up behind kitty and petting her, quite heavily, starting from the neck and going down her back.  Always gravitate back to the neck; it’s sort of a universal cat fetish.  You’ll want to get more vigorous and putting more ‘petting energy’ into her lower back, where her tail starts.  Take it slow and take it easy; if she’s receptive, and you’re doing it right, she’ll present.

Still keeping a hand at or grabbing her neck, you sort of want to pulverize her bum.  Rhythmically pat her back and her hips.  You’re not doing anything with the business end she wants you to do things with, but what you are doing is you’re sending strong, rhythmic vibrations through those sensitive sexy areas, which is good enough for many cats.  Some cats prefer to be rubbed, so just kind of knead her hindquarters, though be careful because kitties in heat are... ahem, a tad messier than human women in heat, for their size, so a vigorous rub right over her backside might make this a certifiably "gross" method.  Just a warning.

In any case, she may orgasm or she may not, and I won’t describe it here because for our purposes it doesn’t matter a whole lot if she does.  What matters is that she’s satisfied and she’s quiet, and she’ll bounce off and do her cat thing.

You may be raising an eyebrow at this because patting her lower back and bum is something you might do regularly to kitty even if she, or even he, is not in heat.  Some cats like getting the crap beat out of their butt.  Yes, this is in fact because it is sexually stimulating.  If your cat likes this when she’s not in heat, chances are doing it with that extra bit of vigour will make her happy while she’s in heat.

The second method is the infamous q-tip method.  It’s definitely the grosser of the two methods I have labeled as non-gross, and it’s infamous because people are idiots and don’t do it properly.  Let’s make sure we know what we’re doing.  So… yeah.  Get a fresh q-tip.

Especially the first time, you’ll want to be doing something with the scruff of her neck.  Some cats, a vigorous little massage with your first two fingers will do fine.  Others, you’ll actually need to grab it, but don’t be too rough.  Either way, until things are finished, you’ll want to stick by that neck.  What you’re looking for is for her bum to come up and her tail to go to the side.  Yep, take a peek.

There are two orifices there.  I can’t believe I need to explain this, but experience with aforementioned idiots tells me I do.  The top one is cat-bum.  The chocolate starfish.  You’re familiar with this one, as it shows whenever kitty is feeling happy and energetic.  The bottom one is one you don’t see quite as often, and is maybe just a piece of discoloured fur anytime else.  This time, since she’s aroused, it’s a little more obviously cat-vag.  That’s the one you want to be looking at.

You’re going to be stimulating her with the q-tip.  Please, for the love of god, don’t just stick it in.  And oh dear really keep a freaking hold on it.  It’s not that hard.  Get a grip on yourself; you clean her urine and feces every day, you watch her washing yourself, you let her sleep on top of you.  This isn’t that weird or difficult, and it does not make you a zoophile or in any way perverted: you’re doing what needs to be done, you’re doing it in a healthy fashion, and you’re doing it because you love your cat and don’t believe in removing her semi-vital internal organs because you don’t like how loud she is.  Just thought I would remind you.  You’re welcome.

You want to just brush the q-tip around and over it.  She’ll get pretty visibly excited.  As you insert it – just a few millimeters is all you need, no further than the length of your index fingernail when it’s cut and probably a lot less – she may start to make noises that in other situations you might find distressing, and she may start to rock back and forth on her haunches.  This means you’re doing something right.  Not all cats do both or even either of these things, however, so just be aware of body language in general.

An alternative method to the q-tip, by the way, is just tapping her there with a finger.  Grosser, yes, but I thought I would point it out anyway.  Other than that, it’s the same method.  If she doesn't respond to that, gently using your knuckles and rubbing them up and down between her hindquarters (not all the way to her anus) as if strumming a very delicate guitar...with your knuckles...should work very well.  No, I'm not a guitarist.

However you do it, it will only probably take a few seconds, and what happens after is quite variable.  Kitty orgasms involve a whole lot of vibrating.  Eyes narrow, and there may be vocalizations, sucking, or just clicking noises like they make when they see a bird.  Alternatively, there may be no orgasm and she might just bounce off to do whatever.  Some cats, if you’re really doing a good job at making her feel comfortable, might last quite a bit longer and through multiple orgasms.  You can take this as either a good thing or a bad thing.

Either way, that’s finished.  No muss, no fuss.  Chuck the q-tip, enjoy the peace, and think about how happy your cat is right now.  Or just go and watch TV.

Animals Can Consent

Animals do not initiate sexual intercourse with people.

Actually, they do, quite a bit.  Whether it’s a cat in heat rubbing her butt in your face, or a male dog bouncing all around you with an erection, animals make the sexual desires well-known, and often those sexual desires involve people.  All it takes is a quick search on YouTube (here's my personal favourite) to see what this can look like.  It's a heck of a lot more overt than any self-respecting man or woman.

But why?  Evolution says they should only want to ‘do’ their own species, and interspecies sex is very rare in animals/humans.

Perhaps Darwin’s greatest failure was in assuming that people would be able to understand that evolution is not a cut and dry thing, is not a machine, and is actually incredibly complex.  For instance, sex performs many other functions other than just reproduction: bonobos, famously, use sex within their societies to lower stress levels.  Lions will mate with each other within their own sex and outside of heat to strengthen social relations.  And we, of course, rarely have sex with babies in mind.

Furthermore, interspecies sex is not rare in either humans or animals.  A fair chunk of the male population (between 10% and 30% depending on what study you’re looking at) have had some sort of intentional sexual relations with an animal at some point in their lives, and according to Zequi et al. (that study I tore into last year) the majority do so more than once.  This rate is even higher among animals.

In concluding the, “why?”: first of all, unlike humans, animals do not have culturally-embedded difficulties with interspecies relationships; secondly, they do not have the barrier of “us” and “them” as we do, which is primarily motivated by our reliance on language, and the notion that since we have it, we are very separate from and superior to other species.

Our pets, even pets that roam or have other members of their own species to interact with, often love us very much even in comparison to friends of similar species.  Our dogs may be OK when they are separated, but when we leave for an extended period, they become anxious and wait with bated breath for us to return.

You mentioned language.  A cat, dog, horse, etc. cannot say, “no,” or, “yes,” so they most certainly cannot consent!

When was the last time you had sex with your human partner?  Or, if you have not done so yet, perhaps you’ve seen it on a film.  Does either participant ask, “Would you like to have sex?” and does their partner say, “Why yes, that sounds lovely.”?  No: generally, no words are spoken whatsoever.  Words tend to “ruin the mood”.  So what do we tend to look for when wondering about consent?  We look for precisely the same things that zoophiles do: we place a hand somewhere, or do something else that is suggestive but not forceful, and our partner either responds positively and goes with it, maybe kissing us and returning a gesture, or they may move away, shift uncomfortably, vocalize (“Nuh-uh”) or even get violent; for example, the classic face-slap.  The last one, barring some interesting relationships, luckily doesn’t tend to happen unless you’re strangers, in which case, you deserve it.

An animal can’t sign an informed consent contract.

Laugh all you want, but you wouldn’t believe how often I get told this.  The problem is, I can’t find any contract to be signed by two people before they are allowed to have sex, so I’ll have to take your word for this one.  If someone could send me a copy of their own informed consent to sex contract, that would be great.  Thanks in advance.

More seriously: "informed consent" is used for legal contracts, and not for sex.  After all, idiots who have never taken a sex-ed course in their life are allowed to have sex, as are people who are intoxicated, and as I will discuss a little bit further on, we humans have a lot more to worry about than do animals when it comes to sex.

Animals are just like children: they can’t consent because they are too dumb to understand sex.

This is false on several levels.  The first level is the broad: there is no one kind of intelligence, and the idea that there is a single sort of intelligence is very old and outdated.  And before you mention it, no, IQ is only one measure of intelligence.  There are many kinds of intelligence, ie motor intelligence, working memory, spatial awareness, empathetic (your dog is many times better at reading your body language than you will ever be at reading his) and interpretation of and appropriate problem-solving regarding certain environmental cues, especially scent, that humans suck at in comparison to other species.  In fact, it seems that the only thing we have that no other animal has is linguistic ability, which has given rise to culture, complex social interactions, and the spread and preservation of information necessary for technological development.

Secondly, it is false that the law states that children cannot consent because they are intellectually incapable of understanding sex; the reason is that they are physically incapable of understanding sex.  Certain brain structures necessary for producing and regulating sexual behaviour, particularly the hypothalamus, are undeveloped.  Additionally, their hormonal cycles have not yet started; hormones responsible for sex drive and primary sex characteristics do not exist in high levels in their bodies just yet.  Neither of these are the case with animals, as is evidenced by the fact that, unlike children, they very regularly engage in consensual sexual behaviour with each other without any of the ill physical and psychological effects that very frequently occur when children are sexualized prior to puberty.

The retort to this argument tends to be that even post-pubescent children are not legally able to consent, and this is because of the aforementioned cultural and physical ramifications in human-human intercourse: we have STIs, we have social and cultural implications to sex, and as highly social animals in which sex is quite taboo, it can have some very real and tangible problems associated with it, which is the reasoning behind an explicit prohibition of sex between teachers and students.  Animals don’t have to worry about any of these things.  The exception, of course, is if the human, for instance, does not feed the animal if she refuses to have sex with him, but this is of course coercion, and is therefore abusive and does not fall within the realm of zoophilia.

Edit (Dec 2012): Due to this being a very prevalent argument against animals not having the ability to consent, I have further elaborated on it here.

Animals rape each other all the time.  They are used to it and have no idea of consent.

No, they don’t.  I talked about this in an earlier post, but I feel it necessary to reiterate it here.  In almost all animals, a female initiates sexual intercourse, and if a male comes onto a female that is not up for it, she will refuse him and may react with violence.  The reason for this is that most animals have good escape mechanisms, and they have good defence mechanisms: a cat can scratch, a dog can bite, and a horse can kick or run.

The exceptions to this are: firstly animals that have very large litters and an at least relatively high chance of pregnancy per copulation, such as some rodents, where the potential for a male to be mortally wounded for attempting intercourse or afterwards is still an OK tradeoff because he’ll spread his genes greatly even if he only sows his seed a small handful of times.

The second exception is, more simply, animals that do not have good defence mechanisms, and in which females are disadvantaged.  This is quite rare, and the only three real examples of animals in which rape is as common as it is in humans are some primates, like chimpanzees and orangutans, some birds, and in dolphins, which engage in gang rape.  For the sake of this article, I will focus on primates, because, well, we are primates.

This will get a little controversial, so if you are sensitive to this topic you may want to skip this paragraph.  The fact is that it seems female orangs seem to actually have adapted to being raped.  This actually seems to be the case with humans as well: most rapes are not reported, and the feeling that, because she didn’t resist, she is afraid that somewhere deep inside that means she was OK with it, is very commonly described to therapists by rape victims.  This may be a defence mechanism: evolutionarily speaking, the chance of a woman dying because she resisted a potential rapist is quite high, and so it would be prudent for them to be biologically predisposed towards not resisting, of course then leaving the poor girls unaware that their genes were at that point overriding the conscious fear and cognitive resistance they were feeling during the crime.  If this is true, then if anything, human females are more likely to appear to consent when in reality they do not, than are most animals that are more naturally capable of escape or self-defence.

Animals in heat are rabid sex fiends and don’t have any choice.

As any breeder will tell you, it is often very difficult if not impossible to get a female animal to mate with someone that she genuinely, for whatever reason, does not want to.  She may well mate with a preferred individual, or, in the absence of anyone she believes is suitable, may choose to not mate at all.  Additionally, although you would be hard-pressed to find an academic source for this for what should hopefully be an obvious reason, animals that are sexually abused will avoid their abuser in future periods of heat, even hiding and suppressing the behaviours characteristic of a heat.  She will be highly anxious and her physical health will take a heavy hit, as it would with any form of abuse.  This goes for both males and females.

On the other hand, of course, an animal that is in a beneficial and sympathetic sexual relationship, whether with another of the same species or with a different species, they will feel a greater attachment to that individual, have less anxiety, and their health will improve, not only due to the greater level of happiness but also due to the various physical benefits of sex, which you can look up with relative ease at your leisure.

This is all the arguments I can recall at the moment that I have been presented with.  If there are more, I will of course edit them in, and if you have more, please post them in the comments or email me with them.  Thanks!

Homosexuality in Nature: Gay Animals

Oftentimes when browsing the internet or listening to a right-wing tirade from some backwards-thinking fundamentalist, I find arguments against homosexuality. The most common one is: “it’s unnatural”. Disregarding arguments from religion, apparently if a species were to “go gay” it would die out due to a lack of reproduction, which is why homosexuality is unheard of in animals.

This is, of course, entirely false. This article, in the spirit of the last, will address common misconceptions about homosexual behaviours outside of the human species.

”Doesn’t it only exist in a few species?”

No. Homosexual behavior has been noted in nearly every family of birds, mammals and reptiles, if not every species. Everything from giraffes to lions to penguins to goats, the tendency of which to be exclusively gay is problematic to many farmers.

”But it’s a dominance thing!”

No, it’s not. As it is with female-male relations, the submissive participant in homosexual intercourse is usually the initiator. Furthermore, in gay “relationships” in many species, there is not a single partner who is always submissive and the other always dominant. The partnerships also exist within species that do not have a real social hierarchy. Finally, as it is in heterosexual partnerships, a great deal of affection may be shown.



It should also be noted on a more intimate note that homosexual activities between males is often penetrative, depending on the species (nearly all mammals).

”It only happens in captivity.”

Also wrong. Many of the photos and articles given above were taken in the wild. The fact is that it is much easier to observe animals in captivity, so most of any animal behaviours we’re aware of, we’re aware of through observation of captive animals, at least initially. Naturalistic observation, though, confirms homosexual activity of a wide variety of species outside of human influence.

”It’s a freak of nature; their genes don’t get passed on. They’re going against evolution!”

I see and hear this one a lot, and it’s patently stupid for two reasons.

The first of these reasons is that evolution is not a god. It does not have some grand master plan in mind. There is no driving goal behind evolution except to ensure that a given species thrives in a given environment. While this means that a species must have proper energy usage, tools for utilizing its environment, a certain social structure if necessary, etc., it also means, perhaps even more importantly, that a species must be quite various. If a species’ gene pool is small, not only do you get birth defects as damaging recessive genotypes are realized, but you also have the problem in which if the environment changes radically or some similarly traumatic event occurs, the species is unlikely to be able to adapt. It can never be well-told what a species will be required to adapt to, so it is always good to have as much variety as possible without speciation.

The second reason is something called colloquially the Gay Uncle Theory. This theory has received a great deal of acknowledgment in relevant fields, and essentially states that a while homosexuals are less likely to breed than heterosexuals, they are more likely to assist their relatives in child-rearing, increasing what we call inclusive fitness. Those relatives’ children will be more likely to thrive, and they will also be likely to have the same genes that contribute to homosexuality, so they will be likely to pass on those “gay genes” (on that note, it should be considered that homosexuality only has a genetic factor of about 20%). This theory works primarily with humans and other highly social creatures.

What about those who are not terribly social? It should be recognized that sex in animals is not so much like sex in humans, because they lack that cultural taboo and other lofty implications: it’s simply a mutually pleasurable activity. Some early human societies recognized this, and we of course know of Greek soldiers being encouraged to engage in homosexual activities to strengthen bonds in the army. Animals, it seems, think similarly. Whether they are bonobos trying to chill their group out, or a trio of male lions looking to found or capture a pride of their own, homosexual intercourse seems to play a potentially large role in strengthening important social bonds.

Hopefully this article has cleared a few things up for some people. Though I’m afraid that the people that really need to read this likely won’t, and probably wouldn’t change their minds even if they did, and actually, given the nature of this blog, would probably become even more staunchly homophobic, I imagine that those intelligent people who are reading this will later be able to use these facts, reasons, and sources in future debates with the bigots. Godspeed.

Fixing Your Pets

This is a sticky topic with me, and one I have had to deal with recently, so I’m going to rant on it.  First of all, I do not believe in neutering your male or your female cats and dogs.  To a lot of people (see: just about everyone), this is a ludicrous thing to believe, partially because, like so many things, everyone does it, so it must be right.  However, there are arguments out there for neutering your animals.  In this article, I plan on addressing them, debunking them, and raising my own against them.

“It’s cruel to let your pet go through sex cycles.”

I find this patently silly simply because letting a universal and natural thing occur cannot by definition be cruel.  Even things that are, unlike sexual arousal, most certainly unpleasant, such as sadness, should be a part of an animal’s life.  At face value, we might say life would be better without sadness, but sadness fills a very important role in our lives as do all emotions – in this case, encouraging the strengthening of social relationships.

Most people who give this argument are talking about female cats.  They hear them yowling and see them rolling around the floor whilst in heat and think the poor kitty is in some sort of pain.  This is not so; they are merely trying to attract attention in the most overt way they can.  I know it’s a logical fallacy, but in this case it does ring true that if it’s natural, it’s probably good for you.  We believe ‘natural’ to be good when it comes to multivitamins and hair products, and even our pet food; why do we believe that ‘natural’ is bad for our animal’s body?

“It’s annoying!”

Once again, typically talking about females in heat.  This argument truly is cruel, as it implies that we should gladly subject an animal to a life-altering surgery simply because we find them obnoxious as they are now.  We had the same mentality when we used to give difficult mental in-patients frontal lobotomies.  While neutering is not as extreme, it is stressful for the animal and does alter them significantly both physically and psychologically, and to me, “I hate how much noise she makes” is not a good enough excuse for that.

There are ways to relieve your female animal, and I don’t just mean icky bedroom-type stuff that people like me do.  There are tutorials out there for cleanly doing so and also to control without the use of surgery or medications the frequency of heats.  And for those of you who are looking to get on your grumpy queen’s good side, this sort of relief is for them a lot like your giving them food: it’s a very quick way to get them to like you even more than they already do – which dropping them off at the veterinarian certainly will not.

“They pee where they shouldn’t.”

This can be trained out of an animal with relative ease, and neutering does not guarantee that it will cease.  I know that both male cats I have had that were neutered still squirted everywhere whenever they got a whiff of a newcomer, until I scared the tar out of them while they were in the act enough times that they got the picture.  Animals aren’t stupid, and like us and our inwardly driven habits, they can change much of their behaviour through… well, I’m not sure if stomping and yelling can be called therapy, but something like that.

“Isn’t it healthier to neuter my pet?”

Not really.  There are certain advantages, the obvious one being that your pet will not get cancer of the gonads and need to have them… uh… removed.  They will also be less susceptible to some diseases, poisoning, and fights with other animals, because they will be less active and roam less – and people who neuter their pets also tend to have indoor animals; there has yet to be a study that I have read that does not account for this fact.  The obvious solution is to keep an eye on your pet, and keep them indoors or to a restricted area, which you should be doing anyway since this is the law in many areas.  There is a significantly lower chance for a spayed female to develop breast cancer, and even then only if she is spayed before her first heat, but that is the only health benefit directly related to neutering that I have read.

On the other hand, pets who are neutered are at greater risk for obesity, and all the associated complications, even if they are allowed outdoors, simply because of that lack of activity.  They are also prone to bone problems, because sex hormones (both testosterone and estrogen) are crucial to bone development and upkeep.  Neutered animals are more prone to urinary problems, and although generalizable statements are difficult to make, they will also be more susceptible to certain infections and diseases due to the effect sex hormones, particularly estrogen, have on the immune system.  Neutered animals of both sexes, particularly dogs, are also more susceptible to cardiac tumours, cognitive decline, and hair loss.  Spayed females are at greater risk for hypothyroidism.  Castrated males are at greater risk for prostate cancer.

This would also be a good time to talk about your animal’s personality.  They lose a lot of that idiomatic flair that made them special, and that lovable energy.  People often neuter their pets and, as the last vestiges of their natural hormonal balance fade off, erroneously think their pet is ‘growing out of it’.  The fact that everyone neuters their animals nowadays makes this a difficult assumption to overcome.  Cats can be kittens, and dogs can be puppies if you leave them to be who they naturally are.

“The cat/dog population is already out of control; I don’t want to accidentally increase it.”

This is probably the best argument for neutering your pet.  If this is your only, or at least your chief motive to neuter your pet, there is an alternative option, and that is tubal ligation for females, or a vasectomy for males.  This does not impact the benefits of sex hormones on the animal, but it does prevent them from contributing to the gene pool.  It is also less dangerous; although neutering is quite easy and is the one operation that all vets are damn good at because they do it so often, there is still risk of infection or complication, especially when it comes to spaying (females).  This procedure involves the complete removal of the entire reproductive system.  It is not a minor surgery.

These are the main arguments that I can recall that I have heard for neutering.  If you find any more (or have any more), please put them in the comments or else email me them, and I will attempt to address them.  Hopefully, though, I have gone at least some way in convincing you with this short article.

Genes, Animals Mating, and You

Some conversations I’ve been having recently have had me considering how sex is different across species… but also how it is the same.  This isn’t a new train of thought for me, but it is a new topic for this blog, and I imagine the handful of readers who have found this page without my linking them directly to it or finding it through some other zoophilic page have probably been waiting for me to talk about animal sex.

The conversation in particular I’m thinking of had to do with vorephilia, specifically why it exists in the first place, and I as a well-read academic and aficionado of kinks, paraphilias and orientations of all kinds immediately jumped up to posit the theory (not my own, but someone else’s) that vorephilia – a paraphilia related to biting and swallowing – is vestigial of the biting that many mammals engage in while mating to give themselves a certain dominant role.

But then I thought: why do they do it?  Anyone who watches enough Animal Planet knows that the species who are known for it – cats, canines, bears, etc. – don’t always do it, and the female (or male receiver) tends to be submissive enough anyway without all the biting.  Indeed, a lot of the time it’s not even real biting, but just sort of a threat that he could bite her if he felt like it.  It appears to have little to do with physical necessity and far more to do with the psychological, so we’re back to square one.

From there, I can take a different direction and philosophize a little about how mating activities have evolved – sex across the ages, if you will.  Sexual selection in larger, more modern mammals, such as the ones mentioned above, tends to be quite complex, with the female exerting a great deal of power over precisely with whom she will mate with, and the male more or less needing to put up with this because the female, while being a bit smaller, still has many sharp devices at her disposal that she can use to make sure that even if he impregnates her against her will, he may well die of infection or of the difficulties any injury may cause him.  The only large mammals in which rape can be called by any stretch common are primates, in which the females lack this natural weaponry, or, in the case of humans, any injury incurred by the male will not pose too much of a threat to his life.

This changes when we get to smaller, simpler creatures, such as most rodents, for many of whom mating success for the males depends on how quickly he can mount and disable the female.  Mating, then, tends to be quite violent, and often does result in injury – presumably, the number of young in a litter is considered to be genetically “worth it”.  In order to prevent herself from being injured, though, it is better for the female to be submissive, since, unlike the male, she cannot be mortally injured at the time of copulation and still have healthy young, thus passing on her genes.

We do not see these power-oriented sexual activities in non-mammals: in birds and reptiles, although the mating rituals can be extraordinarily complex, the action of mating itself is quite straight-forward.  In most fish, no real sexual interaction takes place at all; only in cephalopods do we see similar interactions to our rodent cousins, and in none do we see the symbolic gestures displayed by larger mammals.

It is from rodents that most other mammals have evolved from.  Is it possible, then, that this fixation on dominance in sex that manifests in such interests as vorephilia, sexual sadism and sexual masochism, and practices like bondage and necking, still remain in our genes from millions of years ago when we were merely rodents?  Were these paraphilias, which we now sometimes consider to be maladaptive and perverse, once part of an instinct necessary to pass on one’s genetic material?  This gives us an interesting perspective on these enigmatic paraphilias, which are sometimes, in the case of ones like vorephilia, to the point of being sheer fantasy.  Although this explanation obviously does not cover every paraphilia, if we consider how such interests and activities would have affected our non-human ancestors, we can get a better idea of precisely why they exist in the first place – and, in this, derive a greater tolerance for the associated individuals.