Can Animals Consent to Sex (thread split)

[Jarhyn]

I don't see what the big deal is about raping animals. We take their lives without their consent for food and sport. Why not have sex with them without their consent.

So uh, I literally just posted a deconstruction of why its problematic?

Unless you're going full on "disposable sex toy", I suppose?

Even then, we try to sequester, ritualized, and make as "humane" as possible even the killing of animals for meat, ostensibly for the sake of protecting those who do it at least a little bit from the psychological damage of killing living, thinking, feeling beings.

I'd personally like to see an answer to those issues from anyone who would claim it's not a big deal.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't see what the big deal is about raping animals. We take their lives without their consent for food and sport. Why not have sex with them without their consent.

I would say it is because it causes suffering just for fun (and the person knows or should know they're causing suffering), unlike getting food which is not just for fun (and yes, killing for sports is also wrong for that reason, unless there is another motive and not just fun).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm uncertain why some theists and conservatives always jump to animal sex in threads that weren't about animal sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm uncertain why some theists and conservatives always jump to animal sex in threads that weren't about animal sex.

For the same reason the always used to jump to pedophilia when discussing gays, or occasionally jumping to talking about poop...

Do we really need to review the long history of those who aggressively oppose such things in public and then get exposed for their private lives incorporating those same things?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm uncertain why some theists and conservatives always jump to animal sex in threads that weren't about animal sex.

Learn to read pal. Look around you at whose doing the talking.
GenesisNemesis isn't a theist.
Jarhyn isn't a conservative.
The (atheist) Mods were the ones who bumped this topic.

And last time I checked, atheist dogma teaches us that we primates are animals, so I'm not sure why you're getting so precious..

The claim that animals can't/dont give consent shows gross ignorance of biology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm uncertain why some theists and conservatives always jump to animal sex in threads that weren't about animal sex.

Learn to read pal. Look around you at whose doing the talking.

I did read it. You are the one bringing up consent among animals regarding a topic of sex. Odd how the brain of some theists wander over there... and upset when called on it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm uncertain why some theists and conservatives always jump to animal sex in threads that weren't about animal sex.

Learn to read pal. Look around you at whose doing the talking.
GenesisNemesis isn't a theist.
Jarhyn isn't a conservative.
The (atheist) Mods were the ones who bumped this topic.

And last time I checked, atheist dogma teaches us that we primates are animals, so I'm not sure why you're getting so precious..

The claim that animals can't/dont give consent shows gross ignorance of biology.

I thought I was a theist because I'm an atheist who has a sense of compassion, and I haven't killed myself yet. Get your facts right!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, animals can try to give that consent, but humans cannot accept it meaningfully any more than an adult can meaningfully or ethically accept clear advances from a child.

I see it as a different situation with animals--we can legally kill our animals. We can arrange for them to have sex with their own species, or we can deny them that ability. Why can't we make that one decision?

I think the applicable law should be cruelty to animals. You harm the animal in the process, it's illegal. No harm done, it's just yuck. I do not believe the state should prohibit private yuck.

And on some levels, I agree with you. I'm fact, when I joined these forums, I made similar arguments. The problem with it is that it's really hard to walk that line: people, and animals too, get in a lot of really hairy (furry?) situations when sex gets into the mix. At some point it's hard to separate out your wants from their needs and they don't exactly have mouths or even minds capable of getting that deep into it.

At this point I think that a lot has to do with a particular cognitive dissonance that happens with pets: we pretty much assume they aren't technically "people" but we treat them like "people" nonetheless. It just seems a bad idea to think that you should be able to manipulate and groom something that can't really ever get away from you for sexual purposes. The implications of someone who could do that are really fucking bad.

Everyone who I've ever known who HAS done that (yes, I've encountered a few...) is also the sort who engages in abusive or coercive relationships.

In reality, we have to ask the question of what particular form that harm takes; to me, it is the harm of the decay this causes to normal consent behaviors.

But does it actually cause the harm or simply reveal the people who are already messed up?

 

[Patooka]

But does it actually cause the harm or simply reveal the people who are already messed up?

I'm not porn star massive, but if I fucked a chicken, I think it would cause harm. I am not willing to put it to the test. Can't say why; I'm just not comfortable with it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Probably uus never going to get anywhere unless someone defines some terms.

Like, Is 'puppy love' confined to canine youth?

By "consent" are we talking 'participate,' 'cooperate,' or 'assume responsibility for the consequences of one's agreement to an activity in a very real and legally binding sense'?
If the latter, then when dogs "consent" to return a hurled ball, put you only pretend to throw it, they may have grounds for a lawsuit, and compensation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Apparently one Aussie was concerned about consent so married his dog... (A touching ceremony?)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-guiso-australian-man-_n_791549

Joe Guiso, 20-Year-Old Australian Man, Marries His Dog In Park Ceremony

But then Aussies are known to be a bit odd at times. OTOH, Kiwis and sheep are a subject for others to tackle.

 

[Jarhyn]

Apparently one Aussie was concerned about consent so married his dog... (A touching ceremony?)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-guiso-australian-man-_n_791549

Joe Guiso, 20-Year-Old Australian Man, Marries His Dog In Park Ceremony

But then Aussies are known to be a bit odd at times. OTOH, Kiwis and sheep are a subject for others to tackle.

Let's not forget when an Aussie married a dolphin...

 

[ideologyhunter]

What gives? I thought with marriage equality, I could marry a Golden Retriever -- one who wouldn't just, wham-bam and go back to its chew bone. Bill O'Reilly even said that's what it meant.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Probably uus never going to get anywhere unless someone defines some terms.

Like, Is 'puppy love' confined to canine youth?

By "consent" are we talking 'participate,' 'cooperate,' or 'assume responsibility for the consequences of one's agreement to an activity in a very real and legally binding sense'?
If the latter, then when dogs "consent" to return a hurled ball, put you only pretend to throw it, they may have grounds for a lawsuit, and compensation.

The difficulty is that the meaning of words usually cannot accurately be given in terms of other words; at most, you can give a good approximation. If we were to give a definition of "consent", chances are it would not be accurate, and then we would not be talking about consent anymore, but by whatever we have defined - and one could also ask for a definition of those.

But that should not be a problem. After all, "consent" is a word with a meaning in English, and people often talk about consent without defining it and without a problem it seems to me.

As for "puppy love", that is an expression with more than one meaning, so it depends on the context. In case "consent" has more than one meaning, the one here is the same used in discussions of whether, say, a person consented to sex with another person or not. Whatever people regularly mean by the word "consent" when they talk about that, "consent" means the same in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But does it actually cause the harm or simply reveal the people who are already messed up?

I'm not porn star massive, but if I fucked a chicken, I think it would cause harm. I am not willing to put it to the test. Can't say why; I'm just not comfortable with it.

I wouldn't be sure of that--the typical egg is wider than the typical penis. The question is how deep the channel is. And note that I said that if it causes harm cruelty to animals should apply. What I'm saying I see no justification for the illegality of is the cases where it doesn't cause harm--either the animal is big enough (I would be very surprised if typical livestock animals would be harmed) or penetrating the animal isn't being done in the first place.

 

[skepticalbip]

But does it actually cause the harm or simply reveal the people who are already messed up?

I'm not porn star massive, but if I fucked a chicken, I think it would cause harm. I am not willing to put it to the test. Can't say why; I'm just not comfortable with it.

I never got any further with a chicken than dinner, dancing, and a few drinks.

 

[Bronzeage]

Apparently one Aussie was concerned about consent so married his dog... (A touching ceremony?)

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-guiso-australian-man-_n_791549

Joe Guiso, 20-Year-Old Australian Man, Marries His Dog In Park Ceremony

But then Aussies are known to be a bit odd at times. OTOH, Kiwis and sheep are a subject for others to tackle.

If you have to tackle a sheep, it's obviously not consenting.

It's always fun to watch TFT try to discuss sex.

 

[Bronzeage]

But does it actually cause the harm or simply reveal the people who are already messed up?

I'm not porn star massive, but if I fucked a chicken, I think it would cause harm. I am not willing to put it to the test. Can't say why; I'm just not comfortable with it.

I wouldn't be sure of that--the typical egg is wider than the typical penis. The question is how deep the channel is. And note that I said that if it causes harm cruelty to animals should apply. What I'm saying I see no justification for the illegality of is the cases where it doesn't cause harm--either the animal is big enough (I would be very surprised if typical livestock animals would be harmed) or penetrating the animal isn't being done in the first place.

I have it on good authority, if you have a chicken for sex, you might as well have it for dinner. The trauma is fatal.

 

[ronburgundy]

Probably uus never going to get anywhere unless someone defines some terms.

Like, Is 'puppy love' confined to canine youth?

By "consent" are we talking 'participate,' 'cooperate,' or 'assume responsibility for the consequences of one's agreement to an activity in a very real and legally binding sense'?
If the latter, then when dogs "consent" to return a hurled ball, put you only pretend to throw it, they may have grounds for a lawsuit, and compensation.

The difficulty is that the meaning of words usually cannot accurately be given in terms of other words; at most, you can give a good approximation. If we were to give a definition of "consent", chances are it would not be accurate, and then we would not be talking about consent anymore, but by whatever we have defined - and one could also ask for a definition of those.

But that should not be a problem. After all, "consent" is a word with a meaning in English, and people often talk about consent without defining it and without a problem it seems to me.

Really? It seems to be that a good deal of problems arise over the definition of consent. The issue is that the psychological state of "consent" in purely theoretical terms is easy "They want to", but like all theoretical concepts its not useful for guiding behavior, morals, or law unless it is operationally defined in observable terms. IOW, what matters is how "consent" is assessed and determined, which must balance scientifically valid assumptions, ethical concerns with avoiding violations of consent but also avoiding harmful attacks on non-violations (false positive claims of consent violation), burden of proof issues, and pragmatic/realistic expectations for what people have to do to meet that definition. An example of the latter would be the idea of requiring explicit verbal consent and considering situations like a couple on a date engaging in "making out" and what counts as an escalation requiring a new verbal consent, so that it isn't "May I kiss you?" "May I use my tongue?""May I put my hand on your thigh?", "May I touch your breast?", and on an on for the many dozens of different acts that typically happen (sometimes within seconds) in a make out session. Also, how does all that change once a date evolves into a committed relationship, then into a marriage?


In terms of "scientifically valid assumptions" those are ever changing (b/c science), such as the issue of intoxication. What level of intoxication negates consent? How can a person realistically assess any intoxication level below unconscious? I think there is plenty of room for reasonable and ethical disagreement about such things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't be sure of that--the typical egg is wider than the typical penis. The question is how deep the channel is. And note that I said that if it causes harm cruelty to animals should apply. What I'm saying I see no justification for the illegality of is the cases where it doesn't cause harm--either the animal is big enough (I would be very surprised if typical livestock animals would be harmed) or penetrating the animal isn't being done in the first place.

I have it on good authority, if you have a chicken for sex, you might as well have it for dinner. The trauma is fatal.

I thought that was from guys deliberately strangling the chicken to make it struggle, not inherently from the penetration. I have a hard time picturing it being comfortable to inflict lethal force with a penis.