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!
There we reach the crux of our disagreement. In UK law, rape is the insertion of a "penis or penis-like object into an orifice". It we treat animals by the same standards, which I do, then damage to the sexual anatomy is irrelavent.
If a human man had sex with a human woman without her consent, it would rightly be irrelavent whether sexual anatomy was damaged or not. It would be rape.
For the record, I am a vegetarian. I do not believe in allowing people to slaughter animals OR have sex with them.
We do know, and I'll explain how AGAIN if you want, using simple logic, that animals DO NOT enjoy sex with humans.
Hmm I'm a zoophile but no vegetarian but I don't think this does matter for this discussion...
Ok than please tell me: why is it so logical that an animal can't/does not enjoy sex with a human?
Furthermore I did not say sexual anatomy but autonomy... it is a big difference! Sure it would be considered rape if one part does not consent... but that simply wouldn't matter if an animal has no sexual autonomy!
In germany having sex with an animal is not illegal as long as no physical harm is coming to the animal... I don't no why but I know that is not enough because animals can suffer psychical pain when a human has sex with him... BUT that is not always the case because there are zoophiles who really care about there animals and wouldn't have sex with them if they see that the animal didn't want it... Ok now you would probably say that you can't tell if the animal enjoys it and this discussion would go on forever...
I simply end it with the statement that neiter I nor you can prove those facts.
In addition the society has so many double standards... an animal does not give consent to being slaughtered, neutered etc. but to have sex you need a said consent... that doesn't make any sense to me!
Sorry about the whole "anatomy" thing, I just misread you. Forget that part if my last post. This discussion could go on forever, but I KNOW I am morally right. But whatevs.
Is it normal I'm that open-minded?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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!
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There we reach the crux of our disagreement. In UK law, rape is the insertion of a "penis or penis-like object into an orifice". It we treat animals by the same standards, which I do, then damage to the sexual anatomy is irrelavent.
If a human man had sex with a human woman without her consent, it would rightly be irrelavent whether sexual anatomy was damaged or not. It would be rape.
For the record, I am a vegetarian. I do not believe in allowing people to slaughter animals OR have sex with them.
We do know, and I'll explain how AGAIN if you want, using simple logic, that animals DO NOT enjoy sex with humans.
--
DolphinAngel
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hmm I'm a zoophile but no vegetarian but I don't think this does matter for this discussion...
Ok than please tell me: why is it so logical that an animal can't/does not enjoy sex with a human?
Furthermore I did not say sexual anatomy but autonomy... it is a big difference! Sure it would be considered rape if one part does not consent... but that simply wouldn't matter if an animal has no sexual autonomy!
In germany having sex with an animal is not illegal as long as no physical harm is coming to the animal... I don't no why but I know that is not enough because animals can suffer psychical pain when a human has sex with him... BUT that is not always the case because there are zoophiles who really care about there animals and wouldn't have sex with them if they see that the animal didn't want it... Ok now you would probably say that you can't tell if the animal enjoys it and this discussion would go on forever...
I simply end it with the statement that neiter I nor you can prove those facts.
In addition the society has so many double standards... an animal does not give consent to being slaughtered, neutered etc. but to have sex you need a said consent... that doesn't make any sense to me!
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Sorry about the whole "anatomy" thing, I just misread you. Forget that part if my last post. This discussion could go on forever, but I KNOW I am morally right. But whatevs.