Talking About Power Dynamics in Zoo Relationships

One thing that typically smarter anti zoo folks will bring up from time to time is the idea of power imbalances. They claim that between a human and an animal, the human has the vast majority of power in that relationship.

And honestly, they're right. Based off of both the social norms, the laws, and really just the way of the world, humans absolutely do have more power than the animals that they live with. I can keep a dog in a crate for hours and say it's "training," and most people will accept that as normal and not question it. I can take my dog to the vet and ask them to clip his ears, cut off his balls, or dock his tail, and the vet will be doing so because of my decision, not the dog's. Even down to basic needs, it's all in my hands. Food comes from the pet store and he has neither the means to get there, nor the ability to pay for it. In fact, if I did send him out with a twenty and he made his way to the pet store himself, chances are that he'd be taken to what's basically a dog orphanage, and I'd get in a lot of trouble. Even when it comes to using the bathroom, I have all the power. If he goes inside, the humans in question are allowed to get pretty mad, even while we choose when they get to go out. It's pretty clear that when it comes to power dynamics, we have pretty much all of it stacked in our favor. 

When people that don't like zoos are using the "power dynamics make it immoral" claim, it tends to be under the context of one specific thing. Sex. "There's a power imbalance between humans and animals, therefore sex bad." With the acknowledgement of a power imbalance, the implication is that any sex is done either via coercion or duress. The argument is that the animal is only doing it to get something they want, or to avoid punishment. The argument would go something like this: 

"Animals can't talk, and there's a power imbalance, therefore any time a dog has sex with you it's because you're their caretaker, and they're doing it just because they feel like they need to in order to keep having you provide for them. You've trained them, intentionally or not, and now they do it because they have to."


So is that it? Are zoos actually all bad? Were they right after all? Well, I think it's a little bit more complicated than that. While I do actually think this is one of the more nuanced anti-zoo stances, I think it avoids asking a few key questions that make the whole thing fall apart. So, let's get into it!

To start with, let's talk about some implications. As I mentioned, this position is used to talk specifically about sex. But, if there's a power dynamic for something, there's a power dynamic for everything. That doesn't stop being true for other activities. So, when we're looking at the relationships between humans and animals through this context, we have to apply it evenly. It's the same thing whether we're going for a walk, giving each other affection, or just hanging out on the couch together. More on that shortly, after we've covered one of the other important things. 

Let's talk about communication. For this whole argument to work we need to be incredibly dismissive. Especially to body language. I personally believe that animals are able to communicate a whole lot of things. But in the power imbalance argument, they're taking the position that body language isn't useful at all. Dogs aren't able to communicate even basic things like liking this or not liking that. An animal's actions also have no meaning through that lens. It doesn't matter what they actually choose to do, because any body language or actions they take could still be influenced by the power dynamic, causing them to act in such a fashion in order to appease the person who provides for them.

Here's where this argument starts to hit some snags. If there is always a power dynamic, and also animals can't communicate at all when a power dynamic is present, then doesn't that mean that a lot more than just sex is suddenly problematic?

When we play fetch with dogs, how can we know they actually like running and getting the toy and bringing it back to us? Maybe they're only doing it because they feel like if they don't, we wont feed them that day. There is that power imbalance after all, and they have no way to communicate whether they enjoy playing fetch. Maybe dogs actually really hate treats, but they feel like they have to eat them out of some show of loyalty towards their owners, but secretly they hate them. Maybe that one time that my dog ate a whole bag of treats while I was at work that was because he really wanted me to know that he was subservient to me. 

Do you see what I'm getting at here? This is the problem with this argument. It gets to a place of un-reality very fast. Sure, my dog can't use longwinded English sentences to tell me that he really likes treats and would like one more actually, but is that really the only thing we're going to look at when it comes to deciding whether dogs like treats or not? And, with this kind of argument, even if he could verbally say it in English, it would be easy to say that he was only saying it because he thought he had to. If you believe in this argument, you're saying that it's impossible to know whether or not literally any action you take with an animal is abusive or not. Literally anything. 

But, I don't think the people that use this argument actually believe that. Chances are they'll tell you that the same standards don't apply to everything. That sex is different. And that's suddenly a very different stance to take. So let's quickly tackle that as well. 

Why is sex different? Why is it okay for a power imbalance to exist across so many other activities but not sex? There's a few reasons why I think sex shouldn't be held to any other standard. In particular when it comes to humans hooking up with animals instead of with other humans.

First, animals can get enjoyment out of sex. This is something we pretty objectively know at this point, even outside of just zoophiles and other normies telling you so. Maybe not every single animal gets positive brain chemicals from sex, but a whole lot of them sure do. We know animals engage in cross species sexual activity when they can, as well as in homosexual pairings and even just masturbation. We also know that female mammals have clitorises and that many animals experience orgasm in the same way humans do. There's obviously no way to say for 100% certain, in the same way that you can't be 100% certain that anyone besides yourself is even actually conscious, but I think the evidence is leading 99% likely towards animals enjoying sex. 

Second, sex isn't explicitly harmful. Obviously sex can be, but, it's sort of in the same sense that it's dangerous to play frisbee because you might twist an ankle, or to take your dog swimming because they might get an ear infection. We know STIs aren't created by human and animal mating, only passed on. And, if you and your partner are clean, that's immediately never an issue. Even if you have a human STI, it probably won't be compatible for the dog to get. You're way more likely to get an STI from another human than you are an animal. Unwanted pregnancy is no concern here. And as far as the physical action, so long as size is accounted for, sex works the same for a lot of species. Whether the thing touching the other thing is human shaped, dog shaped, horse shaped, it's all the same thing. It doesn't make any sense that one would just be different for no definable reason. 

Thirdly, and this one may be the most controversial depending on who you ask, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with sex. I know there's a more religious outlook out there about how sex is sacred and whatnot, but as someone who's had my fair share with humans and animals of the same gender and other genders, I can tell you I haven't been smited yet. If your own personal stance is that sex is sacred that's great, but that doesn't convince me of what I should do with my own life. 

We've touched on this topic a few other places so I don't want to dive into it too much, but safe to say there is no reason that sex should be seen as an activity that has higher moral standards than any other activity. And when it comes sex between humans and animals, the scope for harm is, arguably, less than what it is between humans and other humans. 


Here's what makes this "power imbalance" argument particularly effective to a lot of people. You can't prove it wrong. There's no way to 100% conclusively prove your defense. Because the argument comes down to the assertation that animals can't communicate. But, that's its biggest flaw as well. When we say that animals can't communicate at all, it actually ends up making the power imbalance even worse. Not taking their actions into account, it means that it's up to us as the humans to dictate what they enjoy and what they don't. But, by that very notion, the only thing we can do is guess. It's not like they can tell us after all. We hope they like fetch, we think they like pets? We've decided they don't like sex?

All of this, of course, is totally antithetical to the zoo stance. As zoos, instead of rejecting the intelligence of our partners, we embrace it. We understand that they can and do communicate all the time, they just speak a different language. We understand that animals have their own wants and needs and that they can tell us what those are. And, we acknowledge the power dynamic, but choose to fight against it and give our partners as much autonomy as possible, rather than to silence them to nothing more than unfeeling shells of instinct. 

If someone really cares about the power dynamic between humans and the animals they live with, they have two options. Either they should be strongly in support of zoosexuality, and the animal rights movement that comes along with us, or they should be wholesale against the idea of humans and animals living together in the first place, as that's the only way to truly end the power imbalance. To say that it's only a problem when it comes to sex is hypocritical, in denial of blatant realities of communication, and an excuse to use when you don't want to have to think about it too hard. 

And to the zoos out there, the nice thing is that the easiest way to fight this stance is to do exactly what we're already doing. Keep showing just how amazing animals are. Keep showing just how much humans underestimate them. Keep showing that animals are much smarter than many of us realize.