Animals *can* consent to sex

[Scarlett44]

In every way personality wise and behaviorally they are the same dog before sex even happened.

My personality, and behavior, are exactly the same as before my ex-husband physically abused me.
Does this mean that I don't suffer emotional and mental distress as a result of those events?

No.

[dogssup]

My personality, and behavior, are exactly the same as before my ex-husband physically abused me.
Does this mean that I don't suffer emotional and mental distress as a result of those events?

No.

I bet that your personality and behaviors are not exactly the same. Again, your experience is an anecdote.

[Scarlett44]

Why are you reposting what I have already responded to? Stop spamming.

Why did you assume I was spamming?

My daughter was playing with the computer.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

I bet that your personality and behaviors are not exactly the same. Again, your experience is an anecdote.

And, so is yours....

[dogssup]

And, so is yours....

More people who have sex with their dogs can attest to the same conclusion than 12 year olds who haven't been affected (or abuse situations such as yours).

PS.: And I forgot who asked but some dogs do have sex outside of the time the female is fertile.

Scarlett already answered that post showing that dogs possess the cognitive abilities of an infantile child. It's not apples and oranges to draw a parallel that a child at that age doesn't possess the conceptual understanding of sex to consent, nor does a dog likewise possess the conceptual understanding to consent with a being of higher intelligence.

Do you know a 3 year old child that can kill and hunt for its own food? You can't apply human age to a non-human animal. Pretty simple anthromorphization.

More about informed consent: If I have sex with a human partner without knowing all their past sexual partners, am I giving informed consent? From a friend:

There is a question I am often attacked with regarding my
'Zoo' activities. The question is usually some variation of:-
"You say you will only have sex with a consenting animal; How
can you know if an animal is consenting to sex?"
I'm always willing to challenge my own convictions, to
test if what I believe stands up under close scrutiny. So I
devised a test to see if I could demonstrate an animal
consenting to sexual activity with me.
To help understand the test, I would like to briefly
review the theory behind training a dog to perform some task;
for example 'Sit', 'Stay', 'Heel'. Training a dog is a
relatively simple process. It is merely a matter of rewarding
for correct behaviour and depriving reward (or punishing) for
incorrect behaviour. The repetition of the training enforces
the pleasure of doing what is correct, and the pain of doing
what is incorrect.
Take the command 'Sit' for example. Firstly the trainer
will say the word 'Sit' in a clear, commanding voice. Then he
will push downward on the dogs rear while he pulls back on the
dogs lead. The dog will be forced to sit, and the trainer
will praise and reward the dog. After several repetitions,
the dog will associate the reward with sitting after hearing
the sound 'Sit', and should willingly perform the action
without the trainer having to force the dogs rear down. Later,
if the command 'Sit' is said, and the dog doesn't comply, the
trainer will say the word 'No' in a threatening voice or some
other form of punishment for the incorrect behaviour. So the
dog has two associations with the sound 'Sit'. Pleasure
(reward) at the correct action of sitting, and pain
(punishment) for the incorrect action.
I don't believe it is possible to train a dog if the dog
is punished for correct action and rewarded for incorrect
action. The reason I stress this is because it is rather
fundamental to the theory behind the test I set up.

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't follow any
'Scientific Methodology' or use correct control groups, so you
are free to disregard my results and conclusions.
I have two male Great Dane dogs. After feeding them in
the evenings, I encouraged one of my dogs to jump up and place
his front paws on the roof of his kennel. The only action I
took if he complied with my command was to masturbate him to
orgasm while he leaned against the kennel. I didn't even say
'Good Dog' when he complied. The action I took if he didn't
comply, was just to carry on with the evening routine. I
didn't ignore him, I just didn't reward him.
After five evenings, the dog I was training would finish
his dinner, and then practically leap onto his kennel without
any encouragement from me at all. He would look back at me
over his shoulder, wagging his tail. This didn't really
surprise me. But what DID surprise me was that a few days
after that, my other male dog also began to jump up against
the kennel after dinner without any training from me. I assume
he just observed the attention the other dog was receiving,
and wanted the same attention. I rewarded him in the same way.
This was sufficient to convince me that my dogs enjoyed
being masturbated.

Further to the question of consent is whether a dog is
consenting to having it's stomach scratched if it rolls over.
I would like to step back a little here and examine first how a
dog consents to having his head scratched. How do you know
whether a dog wants you to scratch its head, or whether it is
just tolerating it, and humouring you? I can offer consistency
of the dogs reaction as one method of explanation.
Take the scratching head example. I am certain one of my
dogs likes to have his head scratched by his reaction when I
stop. If I put my hand in my pocket, he will force his nose
between my arm and my hip, and flick his head sideways to pull
my hand out of my pocket. Then he will position his head
underneath my hand so all I have to do is flex my fingers and I
am scratching his head again.
A similar situation occurs when I scratch his stomach.
While I'm scratching him, he gives little obvious reaction,
but if I stop, he will practically crawl under my arm and roll
over so I carry on. EXACTLY the same occurs if I scratch his
balls instead of his stomach. The only difference, therefore,
is the social stigma attached. It is socially acceptable to
scratch a dogs stomach, it isn't socially acceptable to
scratch a dogs balls.
Similar occurs when I extend our playing to masturbating
him. If I stop, he will walk and stand in whatever position
is the most convenient for me to carry on. Often it appears to
me to be less a case of him consenting to sex, more a case of
him asking, and me consenting.
As one final example I would like to illustrate what
sometimes occurs in the evenings as we are going to sleep. My
Danes sleep in my bedroom with me. One in particular likes to
sleep on the bed with me. Occasionally, if I am tired, I'll
try to make him sleep on the sheepskins on the floor with the
other dogs. Normally he is the quietest dog, but when I won't
let him onto the bed he'll wait until I'm dozing off, and then
he'll start making a noise that sounds similar to him talking
to himself. The sound is a little hard to describe; neither a
bark nor a growl, just a quiet vocal sound. Then he'll stand
and stare intently at me and the spot on the bed where he would
like to be and snort. If I relent and let him on the bed, he
will settle down quietly and sleep.
The reason I mention the above example is because he will
display exactly the same behaviour under one other
circumstance. That is: when he is horny (demonstrated by
trying to mount the other male dog, and myself) and I won't
even jerk him off, but rather turn off the light and try to
sleep, he will make the same vocal sounds even if he is on the
bed. He will often go further and swat me with one of his
front paws until I relent.

There are other possible explanation for all the
behaviour listed above; Pack leadership challenges, power
shifts and obsequiousness. These results can't be tested in
Laboratories, because they don't occur in laboratories. The
only way to experience these events is to live with large dogs
and act with them with no 'human' social constraints.

One final word on consent, before I close. The question
of whether animals can consent to interspecies sex is not easy
to answer. It is possible that the animals are consenting,
they are certainly receiving pleasure from it. However, it is
socially condemned.
But animals are exploited quite openly by humans; hens
kept in small cages to lay eggs commercially, cows forced to
breed, be milked, and then slaughtered for meat, every case
where animals are used for human benefit. I am certain that
without exception none of the animals involved consented to the
treatment they are receiving. And almost certainly they are
getting no pleasure out of it. Yet it is quite socially
acceptable to exploit them.
So, I won't accept condemnation of my sexual activities
with animals as valid unless the person I am receiving it from
can prove the animal is being forced or is not willing to
participate, and the person accusing me has no involvement
with exploiting animals in any way themselves (including, but
not limited to consuming dairy products, eggs, meat, any
vegetables grown in any area where animals have been forced to
leave their natural habitats, wearing any woollen or leather
clothing, drinking water from a catchment that has caused any
animal to be re-located or killed without it's consent,
walking on woollen carpets. Also using any product from any
company whose employees did any of the above.)

[Mr. Hyde]

More about informed consent: If I have sex with a human partner without knowing all their past sexual partners, am I giving informed consent?

Sure. Knowledge of the individual's past has no bearing on the act. And if it does for you, then you have the ability to gain that information.

From a friend:

There is a question I am often attacked with regarding my
'Zoo' activities. The question is usually some variation of:-
"You say you will only have sex with a consenting animal; How
can you know if an animal is consenting to sex?"
I'm always willing to challenge my own convictions, to
test if what I believe stands up under close scrutiny. So I
devised a test to see if I could demonstrate an animal
consenting to sexual activity with me.
To help understand the test, I would like to briefly
review the theory behind training a dog to perform some task;
for example 'Sit', 'Stay', 'Heel'. Training a dog is a
relatively simple process. It is merely a matter of rewarding
for correct behaviour and depriving reward (or punishing) for
incorrect behaviour. The repetition of the training enforces
the pleasure of doing what is correct, and the pain of doing
what is incorrect.
Take the command 'Sit' for example. Firstly the trainer
will say the word 'Sit' in a clear, commanding voice. Then he
will push downward on the dogs rear while he pulls back on the
dogs lead. The dog will be forced to sit, and the trainer
will praise and reward the dog. After several repetitions,
the dog will associate the reward with sitting after hearing
the sound 'Sit', and should willingly perform the action
without the trainer having to force the dogs rear down. Later,
if the command 'Sit' is said, and the dog doesn't comply, the
trainer will say the word 'No' in a threatening voice or some
other form of punishment for the incorrect behaviour. So the
dog has two associations with the sound 'Sit'. Pleasure
(reward) at the correct action of sitting, and pain
(punishment) for the incorrect action.
I don't believe it is possible to train a dog if the dog
is punished for correct action and rewarded for incorrect
action. The reason I stress this is because it is rather
fundamental to the theory behind the test I set up.

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't follow any
'Scientific Methodology' or use correct control groups, so you
are free to disregard my results and conclusions.
I have two male Great Dane dogs. After feeding them in
the evenings, I encouraged one of my dogs to jump up and place
his front paws on the roof of his kennel. The only action I
took if he complied with my command was to masturbate him to
orgasm while he leaned against the kennel. I didn't even say
'Good Dog' when he complied. The action I took if he didn't
comply, was just to carry on with the evening routine. I
didn't ignore him, I just didn't reward him.
After five evenings, the dog I was training would finish
his dinner, and then practically leap onto his kennel without
any encouragement from me at all. He would look back at me
over his shoulder, wagging his tail. This didn't really
surprise me. But what DID surprise me was that a few days
after that, my other male dog also began to jump up against
the kennel after dinner without any training from me. I assume
he just observed the attention the other dog was receiving,
and wanted the same attention. I rewarded him in the same way.
This was sufficient to convince me that my dogs enjoyed
being masturbated.

Further to the question of consent is whether a dog is
consenting to having it's stomach scratched if it rolls over.
I would like to step back a little here and examine first how a
dog consents to having his head scratched. How do you know
whether a dog wants you to scratch its head, or whether it is
just tolerating it, and humouring you? I can offer consistency
of the dogs reaction as one method of explanation.
Take the scratching head example. I am certain one of my
dogs likes to have his head scratched by his reaction when I
stop. If I put my hand in my pocket, he will force his nose
between my arm and my hip, and flick his head sideways to pull
my hand out of my pocket. Then he will position his head
underneath my hand so all I have to do is flex my fingers and I
am scratching his head again.
A similar situation occurs when I scratch his stomach.
While I'm scratching him, he gives little obvious reaction,
but if I stop, he will practically crawl under my arm and roll
over so I carry on. EXACTLY the same occurs if I scratch his
balls instead of his stomach. The only difference, therefore,
is the social stigma attached. It is socially acceptable to
scratch a dogs stomach, it isn't socially acceptable to
scratch a dogs balls.
Similar occurs when I extend our playing to masturbating
him. If I stop, he will walk and stand in whatever position
is the most convenient for me to carry on. Often it appears to
me to be less a case of him consenting to sex, more a case of
him asking, and me consenting.
As one final example I would like to illustrate what
sometimes occurs in the evenings as we are going to sleep. My
Danes sleep in my bedroom with me. One in particular likes to
sleep on the bed with me. Occasionally, if I am tired, I'll
try to make him sleep on the sheepskins on the floor with the
other dogs. Normally he is the quietest dog, but when I won't
let him onto the bed he'll wait until I'm dozing off, and then
he'll start making a noise that sounds similar to him talking
to himself. The sound is a little hard to describe; neither a
bark nor a growl, just a quiet vocal sound. Then he'll stand
and stare intently at me and the spot on the bed where he would
like to be and snort. If I relent and let him on the bed, he
will settle down quietly and sleep.
The reason I mention the above example is because he will
display exactly the same behaviour under one other
circumstance. That is: when he is horny (demonstrated by
trying to mount the other male dog, and myself) and I won't
even jerk him off, but rather turn off the light and try to
sleep, he will make the same vocal sounds even if he is on the
bed. He will often go further and swat me with one of his
front paws until I relent.

There are other possible explanation for all the
behaviour listed above; Pack leadership challenges, power
shifts and obsequiousness. These results can't be tested in
Laboratories, because they don't occur in laboratories. The
only way to experience these events is to live with large dogs
and act with them with no 'human' social constraints.

One final word on consent, before I close. The question
of whether animals can consent to interspecies sex is not easy
to answer. It is possible that the animals are consenting,
they are certainly receiving pleasure from it. However, it is
socially condemned.
But animals are exploited quite openly by humans; hens
kept in small cages to lay eggs commercially, cows forced to
breed, be milked, and then slaughtered for meat, every case
where animals are used for human benefit. I am certain that
without exception none of the animals involved consented to the
treatment they are receiving. And almost certainly they are
getting no pleasure out of it. Yet it is quite socially
acceptable to exploit them.
So, I won't accept condemnation of my sexual activities
with animals as valid unless the person I am receiving it from
can prove the animal is being forced or is not willing to
participate, and the person accusing me has no involvement
with exploiting animals in any way themselves (including, but
not limited to consuming dairy products, eggs, meat, any
vegetables grown in any area where animals have been forced to
leave their natural habitats, wearing any woollen or leather
clothing, drinking water from a catchment that has caused any
animal to be re-located or killed without it's consent,
walking on woollen carpets. Also using any product from any
company whose employees did any of the above.)

How does that answer the question?

[dogssup]

Sure. Knowledge of the individual's past has no bearing on the act. And if it does for you, then you have the ability to gain that information.
How does that answer the question?

What if I don't have the ability to gain that information? The title of this tread is "Animals *can* consent to sex" and posted an experience explaining that clearly.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________


Homosexuality was a bigger bugaboo than it is now until people began to tear away at some of their religious dogma. The issue of acceptance gradually became more concrete as the issue of consent between adults came further into focus.

People who are against bestiality, generally speaking, appear in my mind to form two camps:

- Those who believe animals cannot willfully consent to having sex with humans.

- Those who believe animals cannot legally consent to having sex with humans.

The first argument states that animals are incapable of giving consent. That argument is false because animals, like minors, do consent to sex. Evolution has provided a powerful need for animals to reproduce, and since animals copulate freely with each other, then it reasons that animals willingly engage in their sexual activity - and since animals willingly engage in sex, then animals, by definition, consent to sex. Since society makes the rules, and since the rules, in part, are made to distance humans from animals, then different rules of behavior will apply between people, minors and animals.

The second argument states that animals are incapable of giving legal consent to have sex with humans and is therefore illegal. Consent, and the legal definitions of (underage) consent, are two separate terms, and when used properly, are used differently. The former is used to describe agreement with a course of action independent of whether it's a moral action or not. The latter are legal terms of consent, and when used correctly, is used exclusive to people only. Legally speaking, animals are considered property. Since animals are property, and since one doesn't require legal consent of their property, then one doesn't need legal consent to have sex with their animal.

Remember, we do not require an animals consent to kill the animal. It's perfectly legal to kill an animal whether we have their consent or not. Do you need your automobile's consent to dismantle it? Legal consent is not an issue.

[Trendem]

I really don't see how anyone can argue against the case made by dogssup regarding consent. I think the taboo against zoophilia is just that - a taboo, founded on irrational reasons (such as innate revulsion).

Since from all appearances animals appear to enjoy having sex - be it with humans or other animals - and do not suffer any negative consequences, the onus should lie on those claiming that animals will be harmed to justify their claim. Failing that, charges of animal cruelty cannot stand.

[tinkerbell]

Tren, Children can consent and enjoy sex, it does not make it a taboo issue if people object. Many people see acts of having sex with children and animals as exploitation and abuse..

[dogssup]

Tren, Children can consent and enjoy sex, it does not make it a taboo issue if people object. Many people see acts of having sex with children and animals as exploitation and abuse..

You have not read this thread fully have you?

I have already answered all of that in previous posts.

[tinkerbell]

yes I have..I still do not believe you have proven anything.

[dogssup]

yes I have..I still do not believe you have proven anything.

Prove to me that I exploit and abuse animals.

In addition, why don't you believe I have been successful in proving the argument? Your one sentence answer might suggest you are suffering from the innate icky factor instead of logically seeing the issues.

[Trendem]

Tren, Children can consent and enjoy sex, it does not make it a taboo issue if people object. Many people see acts of having sex with children and animals as exploitation and abuse..

Unless these people also object to us rearing animals and eating their eggs, shearing their fur or slaughtering them for meat, then they are being inconsistent. After all, these acts are also exploitation and cruelty, far more so than giving an animal pleasure. Yet you don't see outraged cries claiming that it is immoral to eat meat by these people (Scarlett is an exception).

The explanation for this curious phenomenon is clear... It has been documented that humans like to engage in after-the-fact justification. That is, they already hold a certain position on an issue due to irrational sentiments, but then try to convince themselves (and others) that they arrived at it due to good, logical reasons.

Sometimes this works, but for the issue of animal sex, is fails spectacularly. No one seriously believes that having sex with an animal is more cruel than systematically fattening it and slaughtering it for meat; it is a most unconvincing rationalisation.

[tinkerbell]

I only believe you are alpha in the pack, and your animal is only being obedient. Nothing more.

[dogssup]

I only believe you are alpha in the pack, and your animal is only being obedient. Nothing more.

That is the only thing you believe?

Many people see acts of having sex with children and animals as exploitation and abuse..

So are you in the category of 'many people' here or should I concentrate more on your first quote above?

[Scarlett44]

Who are you to decide who can or can not have sex?

No one, including me, has the right to decide if a morally autonomous person may have sex.

Morally autonomous meaning that said person has the abstract reasoning ability to reflect on whether or not any given activity is right for them to participate in.
Morally autonomous people are moral agents.

On the other hand, if an individual is a moral patient, they lack the abstract reasoning ability to reflect on whether or not a particular activity is right for them to participate in.

Moral patients do have rights, which must be protected by moral agents, who have the reasoning ability to decide what's best for them.
However, moral patients cannot be held accountable for their actions, whereas a moral agent can be held accountable for what they do.

Moral patients would include infants and young children, the mentally handicapped, comatose persons, senile persons, and non-human animals.

If an individual lacks the basic reasoning ability to decide what's right or wrong for them, then they cannot give informed consent to anything, including sex.

If they wanted to why should they not be allowed to?

Do you really need an explanation for this?

At the risk of delving too deeply into the subject of two seriously retarded people having sex,
there is far too much risk of physical or emotional harm to said retarded people.
They are totally incapable of assessing these risks for themselves.

~Retarded people with the mental capacity of a three-year old, cannot grasp the concept of why they need birth control, or, even how to utilize birth control.
Neither could they grasp the concept of contracting an STD.

~If a particular form of retardation happens to be hereditary, a retarded woman could become pregnant with a handicapped child.

If someone decided that she should get an abortion, what a horrible experience that would be for her.
She could suffer emotionally, and physically, from having an abortion.

If she carried the baby to term, she would not understand what was happening to her, and her baby might not have a very good chance of being adopted.

If the baby was not adopted, it would become just another ward of the state.

Can't you see anything wrong at all with that scenario?

~During sex, if one of the participants was unable to communicate to the other that they wanted to stop, the other party might not understand, and force the other party to have sex.

~After they have experienced sex with another retarded person, they might think that they can have sex with anyone, anytime they want to.

In the case of a male retarded person, this might lead to him overpowering and raping someone.

That's all I'm going to say about two retarded people having sex.

If you would like to discuss the subject any further, I believe there is a fairly recent thread in this forum called "Sex With Retarded People", started by "GodlySoup".

there are volumes of research dedicated to the emotional and mental effects of a 12 year old having sex. Yet to find any for animals.

Absence of research,on any particular problem, does not equal the non-existence of said problem.

have a higher chance of experiencing emotional or mental issues. Have yet to see any outstanding research to suggest that happens with dogs.

See above.

dog owners take that risk everyday by simply owning a dog, don't they? I wonder how the dog feels about not being run 5 miles a day, locked in a room all day, or not being socialized.

The acts you are describing above MIGHT constitute some neglect, which is deplorable, and I don't condone it.

On the other hand, sexually molesting your dog constitutes active abuse.

in my experience the dog has not experienced any emotional or mental problems due to sex.

Purely anecdotal.

To suggest that dogs MIGHT or SHOULD feel emotional or mental problems from sex would imply that they have a higher cognitive ability

If dogs have the cognitive ability of a three year old human, they are certainly susceptible to emotional harm.

Three year old humans can sustain emotional problems as a result of something happening to them, a fact of which you should be well aware.

Proof?(of the possibility of emotional harm)

I can't believe that I must explain this, but I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "possible".

If something is "possible", that merely means that it is not "impossible".

In other words, in this particular dilemma, we only have two POSSIBILITIES.

Animals ARE emotionally affected by having sex with a human being, OR
animals ARE NOT emotionally affected by having sex with a human being.

There are no other POSSIBILITIES.
Either they are affected, or they are not affected.
Pretty clear cut.

If we only have two possibilities, then the probability of either one being true is 50%.

So, the possibility of emotional harm is 50%, and the possibility of no emotional harm is 50%.

I hope this clarifies the meaning of "possibility".

But, think about the following:

If one believes that animals DO NOT have a risk of emotional harm, and acts accordingly, BUT one is mistaken in one's belief, harm could possibly occur.

But, if one believes that animals DO have a risk of emotional harm, and acts accordingly, BUT one is mistaken in one's beliefs, no harm will be done.

Which is the more ethical and moral choice?

Possibility of harm.... OR no possibility of harm?

It's really not hard to figure out....

[CliveStaples]

Unless these people also object to us rearing animals and eating their eggs, shearing their fur or slaughtering them for meat, then they are being inconsistent. After all, these acts are also exploitation and cruelty, far more so than giving an animal pleasure. Yet you don't see outraged cries claiming that it is immoral to eat meat by these people (Scarlett is an exception).

The explanation for this curious phenomenon is clear... It has been documented that humans like to engage in after-the-fact justification. That is, they already hold a certain position on an issue due to irrational sentiments, but then try to convince themselves (and others) that they arrived at it due to good, logical reasons.

Sometimes this works, but for the issue of animal sex, is fails spectacularly. No one seriously believes that having sex with an animal is more cruel than systematically fattening it and slaughtering it for meat; it is a most unconvincing rationalisation.

You really don't see why people generally find eating an animal more justifiable than having sex with it? There's no rational distinction between the two actions? You know, between eating--feeding one's self--and having sex? One gives us something necessary to live (food); the other simply gives (some of) us pleasure. The one is eminently more justifiable than the other; actions taken pursuant to survival are of necessity more important than actions taken in pursuit of prurient interests.

And why isn't it convincing, Trendem? Are we simply supposed to take your word on it?

[Scarlett44]

I think the taboo against zoophilia is just that - a taboo, founded on irrational reasons (such as innate revulsion)

Personally, I find certain types of human sexual behavior very revolting, but I have no objection to consenting adults practicing them, because they are aware, or capable of becoming aware, of all the risks involved in said behavior.

from all appearances animals appear to enjoy having sex - be it with humans or other animals - and do not suffer any negative consequences

But Trendem,

dogssup has not proven that there is absolutely no risk of an animal suffering physical, or emotional harm.

Animals do not have the mental ability to assess these possible risks.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

There's no rational distinction between the two actions? You know, between eating--feeding one's self--and having sex? One gives us something necessary to live (food); the other simply gives (some of) us pleasure.

Clive, eating meat is not necessary for one's survival.
There are many sources of protein available, besides meat.

You should be aware of this.

[CliveStaples]

Clive, eating meat is not necessary for one's survival.
There are many sources of protein available, besides meat.

You should be aware of this.

You misunderstood; I never said eating meat is necessary for survival. Eating is necessary for survival; meat is one thing that you can eat. The meat of a single animal can feed a number of people. Whereas having sex with a cow or a dog accomplishes nothing beyond one's own prurient desire.

[Scarlett44]

You misunderstood; I never said eating meat is necessary for survival. Eating is necessary for survival; meat is one thing that you can eat. The meat of a single animal can feed a number of people. Whereas having sex with a cow or a dog accomplishes nothing beyond one's own prurient desire.

I understand what you are trying to convey, Clive.

But, without getting into a discussion on vegetarianism, let me put it another way.

Yes, meat is a food source, but it's not necessary for animals to suffer, in order for us to survive.

Just my two cents....

[CliveStaples]

I understand what you are trying to convey, Clive.

But, without getting into a discussion on vegetarianism, let me put it another way.

Yes, meat is a food source, but it's not necessary for animals to suffer, in order for us to survive.

Just my two cents....

If the choice is to forage for hours to get enough berries to feed my kids, or spend the next few minutes aiming my bow and shooting an arrow at a deer that will feed my family for a week...the choice is simple.