fchan

Animals don't have any concept of 'being used for sex'. Most animals have sex because of procreation, while there are a few species which use sex for other purposes, the majority of sex in the animal kingdom takes place for the sole purpose of reproduction.

That said, the animals typically 'used' in regards to beastiality are species which use sex for procreation. When a dog humps its owners leg, for example, it's eager to engage in sex for the purpose of reproducing. Because dogs see their owners as part of their 'pack', this behavior is perfectly naturally, especially in scenarios where the family is very small. Were the dog to have the knowledge that the sex with his owner would be in vain, because no pups would ever result, then he would seek out another sexual partner who COULD bear pups. This really applies to any species who has sex mostly for procreative purposes. Also, keep in mind that a male dog will attempt to have sex with any female dog that is in heat. If she allows it, she's receptive. If she disallows it, she is not. Were a female dog to allow a male to have sex with her, even out of heat, he would do so with the 'understanding' that she is receptive, and he would continue to do so until she disallowed it (no longer fertile).

Also, referring back to my statement regarding dogs and their seeing their owners as the pack, it's important to keep in mind that the submissive in a pack tolerates a lot of abuse from the alpha. A submissive wolf, for example, will tolerate an alpha snapping his teeth down around his muzzle, and yet he will continue to wag his tail and try to appease his alpha with licks to the muzzle and face. He tolerates this behavior because of his position in the pack...and because not tolerating it would cause an uproar in the pack, and possibly a fight (where more serious injury could occur).

So to say a dog humps your leg because he wants to engage in sex with you for the sole purpose of sexual gratification is not correct. The dog humps your leg because his biological urge, the driving force in his, and many animals' lives, is to reproduce. He sees you as a member of his pack, and as such, a potential carrier of his offspring...nothing more. He continues to hump your leg because you allow it (or rather, don't disallow it), and so he believes you to be fertile.

In regards to dogs being on 'bottom', this is something that is inexcusable. I've seen people argue that some dogs just 'like to be bottom'. Just because a dog does not growl, bite, or run away, does not mean he (or she) is willingly engaging in sex. Rather, the dog, the one lower in the pack hiearchy, is simply tolerating the behavior of his (or her) 'alpha'. Keep in mind that humping, in the canid world, is also a show of dominance. Essentially, the submissive is tolerating the alpha's display of dominance over him, and nothing more. To imply that the dog enjoys the act is ridiculous, since the dog cannot communicate such, and what communication does exsist during the act is unreliable, since, as mentioned, the submissive tolerates high levels of abuse in a pack setting without complaint, and sometimes even with eagerness or enthusiasm. By the logic being applied here (pro-beastiality), the submissive -enjoys- his muzzle being bitten and torn open by such, because he does not object, and eagerly laps at the alpha's muzzle.

Horses work in much the same way. Stallions engage in sex because they too are driven by the biological need to reproduce. They see you as members of their herd and again, as a potential partner. They continue their behavior because you allow it, whereas their real sexual partners (mares), dictate when there is sex based on their receptiveness. Also, as far as horses being bottom, horses are used to having things inserted into their genitalia...they lack the ability to understand that a penis, for example, is no different than an arm, which they are probably used to having inserted into their anus for medical purposes. To take advantage of the horse being trained to tolerate such things for medical purposes is just disturbing to me.

Now, that all said...note how I have not said whether it is moral or not. In my opinion, having sex with an animal whereupon the animal is made to be bottom, and it is not a female in season (receptive to sex), is rape...nothing more, nothing less, because of the reasons I've listed above.

Having a male animal hump you? Well, it's not rape so much as taking advantage of that animal's biological drive to reproduce, and also taking advantage of their inability to understand no offspring will result from the sexual encounter. Taking advantage of anything is wrong, but it's not rape. Is the animal emotionally scarred? No, but that certainly doesn't make it right since the animal can't consent for the reasons I've stated above. And trying to defend it is just silly. No matter how many different terms one uses, it's still utilizing an animal for your own personal gain, which is no different than, say, medical experiments on animals, or butchering animals for meat/fur. Just because the animal isn't traumatized in any way doesn't mean it's not being taken advantage of in the same way.