Sorry, but with humans "body language consent" wouldn't stand up in court in most rape cases. It has to be a verbal "yes" to count as consentual, but animals cannot talk. For this reason I would not accept "body language consent" from animals as consent, because I would not expect that of humans.
But that is just my logic, poke holes at will if you want to.
Hmm well if you have sex with a woman do you or she require to say yes if you get it on by cuddling, kissing or something like that?...
Hmm and your argument that it wouldn't stand in court is stupid because neither you can say the animal did not consent so it's a little more complicated... the law is making this point irrelevant as they say having sex with an animal is abuse in every case no matter if the animal consents... That is just ignorant!
In an ideal world, all sexual interaction between humans would start with a "yes" from all parties involved, although of course that normally doesn't happen. However, cases of mixed signals in which "nos" are ignored or misinterpreted are common due to foreplay being misinterpreted as a default "yes".
How would you interpret an animal's body language? What body language constitutes a "yes"? How does this vary between species? We can never be sure, or even have a reasonable level of confidence, that an animal consents, because our scientific knowledge of animal body language is very low. We would need to draw specific lines at what constitutes consent.
Thing about it from this angle. It is commonly accepted that humans and only a very small number of other species have sex for pleasure. Many species, such as lions, experiance intense physical pain during sex. If an animal could not feel pleasure during sex, and often face pain an danger during it, it must only have biological reasons for sex. What biological benefit could sex between two such vastly different species have? The answer is none whatsoever. Therefore, if we accept the theory of evolution, no animal *would* give consent, so consent must be presumed "not given".
I assert therefore that animal's cannot give consent. As another interesting point, many animals do not give consent within their own species either; in many species it is normal for the female to be, by a human definition, "raped" by the male. If a lot of animals do not give consent even within their own species, how can they give consent to a human?
I really understand your logic but you won't call every sex act in the nature rape, would you?
So the female might not give consent but tolerate it.
I know it is a weak argument but as we cannot definitely say whether an animal consents or not I think having sex with an animal is fine as long as no harm is coming to that animal.
Furthermore animals might enjoy having sex with a human!
At least we know that we can't tell if an animal is consenting neither if it is enjoying it but that is no reason to forbid having sex with an animal as you cannot prove the opposite!
Surely if you cannot tell if an animal is enjoying it you MUST protect the dignity and the safety of the animal by assuming that the animal is not giving consent, regardless of whether the opposite can be proved.
However, the opposite can be proved, at least within reasonable doubt. I have already proven that animals do not enjoy sex with humans using simple biology.
How can you say they don't enjoy it... You can't even tell if they would even mind it!
Besides I researched rape/abuse and it is rape if you hurt the sexual autonomy of a living being by forcing it... well and as animals don't have a sexual autonomy in our society (see spaying or neutering e.g.) animals actually aren't raped... I know this is not a valid argument but it is a double standard!
Also the double standard that we are allowed to slaughter animals but not having sex with them!
Is it normal I'm that open-minded?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Hmm I agree with you as I said... but animals can consent!
They have body language and would express if they don't consent to it!
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sorry, but with humans "body language consent" wouldn't stand up in court in most rape cases. It has to be a verbal "yes" to count as consentual, but animals cannot talk. For this reason I would not accept "body language consent" from animals as consent, because I would not expect that of humans.
But that is just my logic, poke holes at will if you want to.
--
DolphinAngel
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hmm well if you have sex with a woman do you or she require to say yes if you get it on by cuddling, kissing or something like that?...
Hmm and your argument that it wouldn't stand in court is stupid because neither you can say the animal did not consent so it's a little more complicated... the law is making this point irrelevant as they say having sex with an animal is abuse in every case no matter if the animal consents... That is just ignorant!
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
In an ideal world, all sexual interaction between humans would start with a "yes" from all parties involved, although of course that normally doesn't happen. However, cases of mixed signals in which "nos" are ignored or misinterpreted are common due to foreplay being misinterpreted as a default "yes".
How would you interpret an animal's body language? What body language constitutes a "yes"? How does this vary between species? We can never be sure, or even have a reasonable level of confidence, that an animal consents, because our scientific knowledge of animal body language is very low. We would need to draw specific lines at what constitutes consent.
Thing about it from this angle. It is commonly accepted that humans and only a very small number of other species have sex for pleasure. Many species, such as lions, experiance intense physical pain during sex. If an animal could not feel pleasure during sex, and often face pain an danger during it, it must only have biological reasons for sex. What biological benefit could sex between two such vastly different species have? The answer is none whatsoever. Therefore, if we accept the theory of evolution, no animal *would* give consent, so consent must be presumed "not given".
I assert therefore that animal's cannot give consent. As another interesting point, many animals do not give consent within their own species either; in many species it is normal for the female to be, by a human definition, "raped" by the male. If a lot of animals do not give consent even within their own species, how can they give consent to a human?
Once again, my logic is open to disection.
--
DolphinAngel
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I really understand your logic but you won't call every sex act in the nature rape, would you?
So the female might not give consent but tolerate it.
I know it is a weak argument but as we cannot definitely say whether an animal consents or not I think having sex with an animal is fine as long as no harm is coming to that animal.
Furthermore animals might enjoy having sex with a human!
At least we know that we can't tell if an animal is consenting neither if it is enjoying it but that is no reason to forbid having sex with an animal as you cannot prove the opposite!
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Surely if you cannot tell if an animal is enjoying it you MUST protect the dignity and the safety of the animal by assuming that the animal is not giving consent, regardless of whether the opposite can be proved.
However, the opposite can be proved, at least within reasonable doubt. I have already proven that animals do not enjoy sex with humans using simple biology.
--
DolphinAngel
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
How can you say they don't enjoy it... You can't even tell if they would even mind it!
Besides I researched rape/abuse and it is rape if you hurt the sexual autonomy of a living being by forcing it... well and as animals don't have a sexual autonomy in our society (see spaying or neutering e.g.) animals actually aren't raped... I know this is not a valid argument but it is a double standard!
Also the double standard that we are allowed to slaughter animals but not having sex with them!