Animals *can* consent to sex

[Scarlett44]

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.

True enough, but we are no longer living in that primitive time period where that might be necessary.

[CliveStaples]

True enough, but we are no longer living in that primitive time period where that might be necessary.

Yes, but the question is about how humans came to revile one cruelty but accept another as an unfortunate necessity.

[Trendem]

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.

As I said, since you are a vegetarian, my arguments don't apply to you. They go out to those people who don't mind eating meat and eggs on the one hand, yet deride zoophiles for "exploiting" animals on the other. Their sudden development of compassion for animal welfare is more likely an after-the-fact rationalisation to justify their inherent revulsion at bestiality.

But Trendem,

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

Why is it his job to prove the absence of something? Since when do we assume that harm exists unless proven otherwise? If you claim that animal sex is cruel because of physical or emotional harm, then the burden lies on you to show that there is a significant risk they would be harmed.

Also, your argument would similarly not work for the vast majority of people who couldn't care less whether animals are "harmed" by being cooped up in breeding farms and slaughtered for meat. If we can kill animals for food or hunt them for sport, what's so heinous about having sex with them, especially if they seem to enjoy it?

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.

As Scarlett pointed out, meat-eating is unnecessary for survival. Even if it was necessary in the stone age, we are not talking about the stone age here. We are talking about today's society, where vegetarianism is a very viable option. If your concern is truly for the animals, why not become a vegetarian?

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

Is it not obvious enough? Whereas animal slaughter deprives them of their very life, animal sex causes them no demonstrable harm, and in fact appears to only bring them pleasure. It is thus absurd to claim that the latter is more cruel than the former.

[CliveStaples]

As Scarlett pointed out, meat-eating is unnecessary for survival. Even if it was necessary in the stone age, we are not talking about the stone age here. We are talking about today's society, where vegetarianism is a very viable option. If your concern is truly for the animals, why not become a vegetarian?

Because I think that you can kill an animal humanely. There's no way to have sex with an animal humanely; it has the mental capacity of a child. Just because they appear to enjoy it, or appear to welcome it, does not mean that they are truly giving consent.

Is it not obvious enough? Whereas animal slaughter deprives them of their very life, animal sex causes them no demonstrable harm, and in fact appears to only bring them pleasure. It is thus absurd to claim that the latter is more cruel than the former.

"Appears only to bring them pleasure"? Support, please; I have no idea how you can claim to know the psychological effects that sex with humans has on animals. Just because there's no physical trauma doesn't meant that there has been no harm done.

And whether an act is cruel or humane doesn't always turn on whether it deprives a person of their life; there are humane ways to kill someone, and cruel ways to keep them alive.

[Scarlett44]

Why is it his job to prove the absence of something? Since when do we assume that harm exists unless proven otherwise?

Well, if you remember, I did not bring up the issue of emotional harm.

dogssup brought up the issue of emotional harm to animals in post #39, claiming that there was no risk of it, and that "risk of emotional harm " was something that only occurred in humans.

He later retracted it, saying that he could not prove it.

[dogssup]

I also explained that in my experience there has been no emotional or mental harm. It still does not negate the fact the burden of proof is on you because you're still bringing the issue up.

[Trendem]

Because I think that you can kill an animal humanely. There's no way to have sex with an animal humanely; it has the mental capacity of a child. Just because they appear to enjoy it, or appear to welcome it, does not mean that they are truly giving consent.

Umm, why should animals consent to sex alone? Do animals give consent to be killed? If not, then why is killing them acceptable, if whether an act is humane or not turns on whether the animal can fully give consent to that act?

In fact, if we want to stretch this spurious logic of "full consent" further, we can argue that an animal is basically incapable of consenting to anything, since it lacks the mental capacity to appreciate the full risks of walking down a street, playing catch, eating scraps, being bathed, etc. I suppose it is cruel and inhumane to do ANYTHING to your pet.

"Appears only to bring them pleasure"? Support, please; I have no idea how you can claim to know the psychological effects that sex with humans has on animals. Just because there's no physical trauma doesn't meant that there has been no harm done.

As stated before, the onus is on you - in condemning an act to be harmful - to prove that there is harm.

As for support that animals derive physical pleasure from sex with humans, I believe dogssup has given ample documentation of that. If you think he is lying, please give evidence to contradict him.

And whether an act is cruel or humane doesn't always turn on whether it deprives a person of their life; there are humane ways to kill someone, and cruel ways to keep them alive.

And yet in spite of all the bluster and rhetoric, your side has failed to provide a modicum of proof supporting the implication that animal sex is cruel. Lack of full consent (the type of consent we demand of humans) does not equal cruelty.

[Scarlett44]

I also explained that in my experience there has been no emotional or mental harm.

As I stated before, this is purely anecdotal, and does not prove that the risk of harm does not exist.

It still does not negate the fact the burden of proof is on you because you're still bringing the issue up.

You essentially made a claim that the only difference between having sex with your dog, and having sex with a physically mature 12 year old, is the risk of emotional/mental harm, and that animals had no risk of it.

You later retracted that claim, saying that you could not prove the absence of risk.

Keeping in mind that you retracted your claim, is there now any ethical or moral difference between having sex with a physically mature 12 year old, and having sex with your dog?

There are only two possibilities here, as I stated previously.
Either there is a risk, or there is not.

If we only have two possible outcomes, the probability of either one being true is 50%.
This is basic math.

So, there is still a 50% probability that the animal has a risk of emotional harm.

Having sex with a dog, when there is a 50% chance of emotional harm, makes it immoral to sexually molest the dog.

[CliveStaples]

Umm, why should animals consent to sex alone? Do animals give consent to be killed? If not, then why is killing them acceptable, if whether an act is humane or not turns on whether the animal can fully give consent to that act?

Because sexual assault harms predominantly psychologically, not physically. It's a different kind of harm--one that lacks the practical necessity that killing the animal does not. It's tough to eat an animal without killing it, and killing it quickly and painlessly is the humane thing to do. What practical purpose is served by engaging in sex acts with the animal, since you agree that the act requires as much justification for the harm caused as killing it?

In fact, if we want to stretch this spurious logic of "full consent" further, we can argue that an animal is basically incapable of consenting to anything, since it lacks the mental capacity to appreciate the full risks of walking down a street, playing catch, eating scraps, being bathed, etc. I suppose it is cruel and inhumane to do ANYTHING to your pet.

Support? I think animals do understand the risks of walking down a street--a large object bearing down on you at great speed generally signals danger, to both human and animal alike.

As stated before, the onus is on you - in condemning an act to be harmful - to prove that there is harm.

Since you support the act, and offer truth claims about the (lack of) harm done, the onus is on you to support your claims. I am willing to support the claims I make, but don't pretend that your case doesn't need any support either.

As for support that animals derive physical pleasure from sex with humans, I believe dogssup has given ample documentation of that. If you think he is lying, please give evidence to contradict him.

The fact that animals can have orgasms doesn't mean that engaging in sex with them is harmless. Human females can have orgasms, too, after all. It isn't enough to prove that animals can derive pleasure from sex.

And yet in spite of all the bluster and rhetoric, your side has failed to provide a modicum of proof supporting the implication that animal sex is cruel. Lack of full consent (the type of consent we demand of humans) does not equal cruelty.

"Bluster" and "rhetoric"? I don't know what thread you've been reading, Trend, but I've tried to remain calm and thoughtful--but, hey, if you want to get excited about this, go right ahead.

"My" side has shown that ending an animal's life isn't necessarily cruel, so long as it is done in a humane way for a good purpose. What your side has completely failed to do is establish any kind of reason or rationale beyond sheer narcissistic indulgence of sexual fantasies for forcibly engaging in sex without the consent of one's partner--i.e., rape. Your side has claimed--without support--that such indulgences cause "no harm" and that the animal actually "enjoys it"--also common defenses in human-to-human rape cases. Without a sufficiently good reason, I cannot condone acting in such a reckless, careless manner.

[dogssup]

There are only two possibilities here, as I stated previously.
Either there is a risk, or there is not.If we only have two possible outcomes, the probability of either one being true is 50%.
This is basic math.So, there is still a 50% probability that the animal has a risk of emotional harm.Having sex with a dog, when there is a 50% chance of emotional harm, makes it immoral to sexually molest the dog.

If there is a 50% risk I believe you should be able to find some proof somewhere that sex causes "emotional harm" to the animal, right? Good luck

[KevinBrowning]

If there is a 50% risk I believe you should be able to find some proof somewhere that sex causes "emotional harm" to the animal, right? Good luck

How is that supposed to be proved? An interview with a dog rape victim? A scholarly article from the Journal of Canine Sexual Psychology? How about just common ethical sense that humans cannot read dogs' minds?

[shishomiru04]

"My" side has shown that ending an animal's life isn't necessarily cruel, so long as it is done in a humane way for a good purpose. What your side has completely failed to do is establish any kind of reason or rationale beyond sheer narcissistic indulgence of sexual fantasies for forcibly engaging in sex without the consent of one's partner--i.e., rape. Your side has claimed--without support--that such indulgences cause "no harm" and that the animal actually "enjoys it"--also common defenses in human-to-human rape cases. Without a sufficiently good reason, I cannot condone acting in such a reckless, careless manner.

rape???....rape is unwanted sexual contact, how do you know for sure that it is unwanted sexual contact?...have any proof that it is?....and who in their right mind would "force" themselves upon anyone or an animal even?....if a dog mounts me, i am forcing myself upon him eh?...i made him do it right?....yeah thats logical...we don't tell our animals, come here and do me right now, we don't keep them chained up so they don't get away while we perform sexual acts upon them, we don't muzzle them so they can't bite us while we "rape" them...last i knew dogs can be quite dangerous if they feel threatened especially really large dogs....you better believe that if you tried to grab a dog's penis or ear or tail or anything else and they didn't want you doing so, they will surely let you know that they don't want you to do that....

[SarahConnor]

oh really?...go to youtube, and type in dog humps horse or cat or whatever....they look like they are seeking sex from those animals....the problem with your statement is you don't know enough info to support your claim, when an dog is horny it will try to have sex with anything....stuffed animals included

Just because a dog starts humping your leg doesn't mean it wants sex.

[CliveStaples]

rape???....rape is unwanted sexual contact, how do you know for sure that it is unwanted sexual contact?...have any proof that it is?....

That isn't the standard; it's the reverse, you must know that it's consensual before you have sex.

...and who in their right mind would "force" themselves upon anyone or an animal even?....if a dog mounts me, i am forcing myself upon him eh?...i made him do it right?....yeah thats logical...we don't tell our animals, come here and do me right now, we don't keep them chained up so they don't get away while we perform sexual acts upon them, we don't muzzle them so they can't bite us while we "rape" them...last i knew dogs can be quite dangerous if they feel threatened especially really large dogs....you better believe that if you tried to grab a dog's penis or ear or tail or anything else and they didn't want you doing so, they will surely let you know that they don't want you to do that....

You misunderstand the nature of power structures, I think. Victims of sexual abuse do not always physically resist their abusers; and merely because they are seeking sexual contact does not mean that you should engage in it with them. High schoolers, for instance, might attempt to initiate sex with an adult, but it would be wrong for an adult to engage in that sort of activity with them.

[dogssup]

Animals and 'high schoolers' are different subjects legally and morally.

Animals are technically property.

Do you ask your car to consent before screwing it?

No.

It's a non-issue.

[CliveStaples]

Animals and 'high schoolers' are different subjects legally and morally.

Animals are technically property.

Do you ask your car to consent before screwing it?

No.

It's a non-issue.

Animals and cars are different; can you be arrested for kicking your car?

The question is whether you are causing harm, and it's the same concern for both humans and animals. Now, perhaps it's the case that animals experience no psychological harm whatsoever from this sort of thing, or maybe it's the case that they do. I haven't seen persuasive evidence either way, and my understanding of humans makes me inclined to believe that it does cause harm.

[tinkerbell]

It is amazing what you can get a dog to do or put up with, with just some positive reinforcement..
And I have never had to use Peanut Butter to entice a lover. For something so "natural" it sure does seem to take some training, and patience.

[CliveStaples]

It is amazing what you can get a dog to do or put up with, with just some positive reinforcement..
And I have never had to use Peanut Butter to entice a lover. For something so "natural" it sure does seem to take some training, and patience.

The modus operandi is quite similar, isn't it? Using sweets as bait, that is.

[dogssup]

It is amazing what you can get a dog to do or put up with, with just some positive reinforcement..
And I have never had to use Peanut Butter to entice a lover. For something so "natural" it sure does seem to take some training, and patience.

You must have a misconception of how it works! That's okay I don't expect you to know. A woman has *no* need to use peanut butter. End of story.

The question is whether you are causing harm, and it's the same concern for both humans and animals. Now, perhaps it's the case that animals experience no psychological harm whatsoever from this sort of thing, or maybe it's the case that they do. I haven't seen persuasive evidence either way, and my understanding of humans makes me inclined to believe that it does cause harm.

Great logic! Until there is proof that it causes psychological harm it is non-issue. Also the evidence must suggest overwhelmingly that this is the case because thousands of people do this and report no such thing...

If: If there is psychological harm it does not suggest the activity is wrong. Is it possible that human-human sex can cause psychological harm? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't have human-human sex or make it altogether illegal? Good luck!

[shishomiru04]

Just because a dog starts humping your leg doesn't mean it wants sex.

so when a dog has a hard on and starts humping my leg or any other pert of me, he's not horny?...RUBBISH!....when my boyfriend is horny he practically acts the same way lol ....if a male of any species has a boner...it's more than likely horny...

It is amazing what you can get a dog to do or put up with, with just some positive reinforcement..
And I have never had to use Peanut Butter to entice a lover. For something so "natural" it sure does seem to take some training, and patience.

trust me, I don't need peanut butter....usually women need no bait for that sort of thing...


i'd also like to point out that not every animal is interested in bonig a human(obviuosly)....the fact that if a male had to choose between a female of it's own species or a human is completely irrelevant, because some dogs or anything else simply don't like humans "in that way"......every animal has it's own preference...if a dog shows that kind of interest in me, well great!, but if he doesn't, it isn't like i keep on bugging him or trying to get him to do things he doesn't want to do....i have a knack for knowing what animals think when i get to know them a little, i have by friends and family a few times over have been called a whisperer...i study animal body language, and the noises they make, the expressions on their faces, the looks they give me...i know when they are bored, when they are hungry, when they are lonely, when they are tired, when they are happy, angry or jealous...these things are all very easy to figure out to me....so i honestly know when i am doing harm and when i am doing no harm to them...thats if you believe in that sort of thing, allot of people don't...oh well