It seems it's not really allowed to be discussed in most places, outside of designated areas like this. I'm taking an animal ethics course at my uni, and the professor simply stated that "animals cannot consent" and would not allow any further discussion. Many other sites straight-up do not even allow the discussion of this topic. Reddit's one of the only major places out of IRC or beast forums that whatsoever allows this topic to be brought up (and porn of it to be freely shared).
So, given that, I wanted to ask what the people here thought, as well as lay out my own thoughts. I don't think I could post what I think in as much detail anywhere else with any hope of anyone reading it.
It seems that most of the ideas that animals cannot consent stem from the idea that animals are not rational. They are sentient and conscious (they can feel complex emotions and have a mental "self"), but are not rational (lack a concept of "self" and cannot consider what consequences their actions have on themselves or others). And simply they can thus not consent. At least, this is the logic my animal ethics prof used. It seems flawed to me.
Yes, they can't consider the consequences, but neither could the hominids that were the predecessors to the modern human species. Did they all rape each other? Did consent only ever come into existence once humans walked the earth, standing up on their pedestal above everything else, confident in their moral superiority? In the 3+ billion years of life existing on Earth, before humans, did everything exclusively rape each other? Why do female ducks have fake passages that enables them to be the only species with "ways to shut that whole thing down" if they're raped, if they're not capable of consent to begin with (according to this thought pattern)? Why do studies on asexuals that show they have an across-the-board lower (if not absent) interest in porn, sex, or even relationships (especially romantic ones), and yet still masturbate? Why are over half of all births in the United States a consequences of unintended pregnancies? If we artificially enhanced a dog's intelligence either through genetic engineering or biotechnology or some other thing or combination of things, and he became rational and became able to consider those things, would he be able to "consent" - and would he be unable to consent with other dogs? It may be rational, for example, to use contraceptives or protection (condoms, birth control, etc.) - but then what is the rational benefit of the sex? Do we rationally decide to wake up with morning wood? When your spouse asks if you want to have sex, and you say, “No, honey, I'm not in the mood,” does that mean you rationally chose to not be in the mood?
The only example I can conjure up of actual rational decision-making influencing someone to have sex is prostitution, when they really need money to survive. Although they might hate the activity and detest the person they're with, and so have no instinctive or emotional influence on the decision, they wholey rationally realize it is needed to survive. But to such a person in such a situation, it feels more like rape than consent.
You can go on and on with infinite numbers of anecdotal pieces of information or hypothetical examples. The point is, is that the choice of having sex is not at all a rational decision, and so it cannot be said that just because animals are not rational, they therefore cannot consent. It may be true they cannot consider the legal consequences of their actions, but that doesn't make the law self-justifying. Sex has existed for billions of years long before humans were around, and we did not invent consent - to think such a thing is intensely species-centric, and assumes so much regarding the divinity or inherent superiority of humans over animals.
Consent, I believe, is a completely irrational decision. I believe it is, in and of itself, based on instincts and emotions, two things that animals have the capacity to feel and even express.
But what does the zoophilia subreddit think? Have I not thought of something else, am I wrong on something entirely? Do you agree? Why or why not? I want some honest thoughts and input, because it is such a deeply forbidden topic, shunned by society, not even given the light or time of day to be debated. It is something we're generally not allowed to talk about or share, and we're expected to fall in line without question. But I refuse, and I question it, and I hope you do, too.
I think consent is the wrong question when discussing extraspecies relations. I mean, between humans consent is a huge issue with ties through our core.
But with animals? I mean, there are structural hierarchies around mating and the like all through the chain. With stags earning mates and that sort, I mean consent isn't something I even consider in the animal kingdom.
So, if that's the case, imposing the human construct to make an argument about another species just seems ridiculous. If we went and tried to stop duck rape mating and went to jail them or execute them when it happened, wouldn't that just look absurd?
Why, then, do we try to argue for animals being unable to consent for us? I mean, I just think that's trying to use the wrong equation.
A very good point and something I thought of before, too, but didn't know how to word it myself. "Consent" in the human context has a much broader meaning, including many social, legal, cultural, etc. values. But I simply don't have another word for it. I believe animals and humans can legitimately have sex together, and I think we can say it's not "rape", but I don't know what to call it other than "consent".
Understood completely. I just wanted to raise the point, not trying to dismantle your argument at all.
I very much appreciate your input and find it valuable. Thank you. =)
Absolutely!
[deleted]
That's a good point. You get to the point where the argument becomes: Well, if you're not sure if you're harming them or not, why even take the risk?
Even though, as you said, it's horseshit.
[deleted]
The same base argument can be applied to pet ownership itself. If we can't tell whatsoever what they enjoy, or some arbitrarily decided line of what we can tell is enjoyment is drawn, how do we justify them being pets at all?
[deleted]
People use the term consent as a broad brush to stop the conversation because most people find the idea of zoophilia utterly aborhent... Or maybe they just are uncomfortable by the idea because it's unknown and confusing. Whatever the reasons, you make a very good case about how the whole concept is a grey zone. Living creatures rarely give explicit consent about anything we do unless it's a legal matter!
Even our most complicated social interactions and structures are at some point a product of our basic needs, urges and desires. We have rules about what we can and cannot do. But it's still a very complicated dance we do to avoid behaving like our animal cousins. We people somehow think because we're more complicated that we have exception from nature, that our rules are better because we have free will. But how many people actually exercise free will? Aren't most people just going through life reacting to forces internally and externally anyway?
I'm biased of course, I had a "consensual" relationship with a canine partner that lasted for years, and yet so-called professionals will say that it was abuse because he couldn't vocalize or understand in some way what sex means.
Why does it mean anything at all? It's humans that attach meanings to thing, it's humans that make sexuality a bad thing, and make complicated associations with even our own actions. I mean think about it, people do things by their own decisions that cause themselves so much problems that they need therapy just to function afterward.
It's very ignorant to put those kinds of values on an animal. I tend to think a lot of loving zoophiles have a better understanding of how animal minds work, because we take the time to meet them on their level. No preconceptions, no filters or anthropomorphising, just one species connecting with another on a very basic level.
[deleted]
I like your comment for at least providing some kind of basis of argument that revolves around an actual substance, and not simply saying some buzzword or red herring and demanding people follow through.
What I would point out/add to a few things, is that laws against zoophilic sodomy include oral - I don't think giving a blowjob to a dog is very damaging, assuming the human is healthy, so not all sodomy of all kinds is completely cruel. The other things you pointed out are true, a lot of people do use animals for porn somewhat carelessly, going on for too long, and human penetration into small animals is something I don't like as well. But it might be hard to determine if this is a majority of zoophiles. There was a journal posted on the zoo forums here that it is pretty rare for people to have sexual preferences for animals, but how many people out of everyone who ever does anything with an animal abuse them in such manners as you described? Any media information would be told to get ratings and would be unreliable, and other data collections might be skewed with various vague definitions of what "abuse" constitutes (it is generally considered any sort of activity is "abuse"). In other words, it's not likely that anyone can objectively find the answer to, "How many zoophiles treat animals fairly in sexual encounters?"
I guess the basis of my reply is essentially that I don't like the idea of making something illegal for everyone just because some undetermined number of people can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions. Those individuals should be punished accordingly and not allowed to have pets, while others should be free to choose. I suppose the difference in our opinions, then, rests mainly on our trust in the average person's decision-making skills.
[deleted]
I think I understand your reasoning better after a good night's rest and reading the rest of your posts. You are correct to say that when it comes to something like this, rather than drug use, a higher form of scrutiny is absolutely required. But then again, lots of people who have kids probably should not, and we don't stop them even though their decisions affect those lives. Instead, we punish those people individually on a case-by-case basis. But, like you said, we won't live to see it change in our lifetimes, and the laws are better than no protections, but given that I'm a minority and the law will stay in effect regardless of my support, then I have no reason to support it.
Not to derail the line of reasoning, but I wanted to know what you think of the following: With this higher form of scrutiny that is properly called for here, is it proper to invoke the precautionary principle? That being, since animals can't vocalize their abuse, it's better to assume it's always abuse in all cases, even if the argument that they do have the capacity to consent is accepted - and I'm saying this not from the perspective of you or I, but I mean from the perspective of investigators, who can't tell as well as the person who actually engaged in the activity. That could be a potential justification for the laws even if a minority of people commit what you or I would consider abuse. But I just don't like the blanket ban, even if it makes sense in some ways, because it still hurts people who never did anything that I feel was wrong. People get caught even if they're careful, and in my location of residence, sex with an animal carries a higher maximum prison sentence than sex with a twelve-year-old. To me, that's completely unjustifiable. To clarify a little, I guess: So, for me, it's rational to follow this law instead of just going, "Well, I can get away with it in private, and only idiots will get caught," because that's not good enough to risk such a ridiculous sentence, so I feel like I'm being pre-emptively punished for something someone else assumes the nature of.
[deleted]
I agree with almost everything you said, but I personally disagree with anti-bestiality laws. It seems to me that they laws exist simply to enforce the moral standing of zoophilia being inherently wrong. I feel like properly-worded animal cruelty laws would cover just about all situations of animal abuse, sexual or otherwise.
However, I would agree that anti-bestiality laws would be preferable to absolutely no laws protecting animals whatsoever.
[deleted]
Yeah, I understand the reasoning behind this. I guess a more accurate way of stating how I feel would be that I dislike the idea of anti-beastiality laws. I've never liked the idea of a blanket ban on something that was only harmful in some cases. I would definitely agree that both convincing people to be accepting of non-abusive zoophilia and getting laws that clearly define the difference between abusive and non-abusive relationships passed are tasks that will take a long time.
Kinda late to the party here but seeing as this sub gets so much traffic anyways thought I'd throw in my two cents. :P
I'm not sure I really can help you with your argument, but you're correct that most people use lots of logical fallacies when making a case for their opposition to zoophilia. I used to ponder the morality of being a zoo a lot more, I would go and debate people on the internet, think deep and hard about it over a drink or two, and worry about whether I could justify myself to society. Like you I discovered most people would never admit they might be mistaken, they possessed this deep-down conviction that any sexual act with an animal was wrong, regardless of the circumstances.
I got burnt out having to dispel the same myths over and over again and then having people completely tune out what I was trying to say. So a few months ago I simply stopped giving a shit. I knew I was doing right by my mate and that was all that mattered to me. I don't make any more "IAMA Zoo AMA" posts or stick my head into arguments. And it's been liberating I guess, but everyone could probably stand to care a little less about what society thinks about them. ;)
I don't think that really answers your question, and I guess I wrote that more for other zoos who are concerned about the acceptance or lack thereof of zoophilia by society. But I (and no doubt other zoos) really appreciate you taking the time to think through what is for almost everyone a rather disgusting subject and if you need a source for a report or something I'm happy to be one through PM. :)
Look, consent is a flawed argument in my opinion.
First of all, if animals cannot consent to sex and we stipulate that this is important, then why do we not run screaming into the woods to separate two deer who are getting it on with each other? Because, as they cannot consent, they are just raping each other under our eyes, aren't they? Since we do not hold this view, either the issue that this is about sex, or the issue that one of the partners is human is overweighted. Can we justify that? I think not.
Furthermore, why is the fuzz only made about sex and consent? If consent is so important, and if the usual equation goes zoophilia = animal rape, then meat eating surely = murder. Yet nobody asks if the cow was ok with being slaughtered. The very question would be taken as comedy by most people. Some for service dogs = forced labor. etc etc.
I am not in the mood to rehash this argument, I'll write you a PM where all human knowledge and all possible discussion on this topic was already done. I'l just say consent is one of the go-to justifications after the fact people use to rationalize their "this is yuck" feeling about zoophilia.
(Ok, I'm not really sure what an "animal ethics course" at a university consists of. There's probably a difference between a philosophy-type ethics course where they want you to think and a professional-type ethics course where they tell you what you're supposed to do. If it's the second kind, I'm not surprised they told you this. If it's the first, I'm kind of annoyed the professor shut down the argument like that.
#Your OP was very well-thought out. You and thousandcows already said most of what I would have said on this subject. People can't accept that grown animals can have a sex life because they see them as almost morally equivalent to human children.)
"Animals can't consent" is a thought-terminating cliché. Also, it manages to be a technically true statement that misses the real point.
What is consent? It's a rule that humans invented to govern human-human interactions (sexual and otherwise), with a standard that only humans can pass. One criterion is that both parties have to be fully informed about the situation. What happens when we apply such a standard to animals? They fail! How do you know an animal is fully informed of anything?
"Ok, we're done here. Animals can't consent to anything."
Chickens can't consent being eaten. Dogs can't consent to veterinarians performing surgery on them. Squirrels can't consent to people cutting down the tree they were living in. Cows can't consent to becoming leather jackets. That bug didn't being squished. And, here's the big one, animals can't consent to sex with each other.
As we can see, this quickly becomes ridiculous, and only the strictest vegans and Jains can apply the informed consent standard to animals without being hypocritical. Why are we giving animals the human notion of informed consent in one domain (sex) but not in any other part of their lives or deaths? Especially when the act in which they're being denied agency is a thing they already do in the wild, frequently and in many different ways.
"So you're just going to give people a carte blanche to do whatever they want with animals? You monster!"
#I'm not going to broach thorny subjects like veganism, meat-eating, and animal testing. I'm going to limit this to zoophilia. What are zoophiles to do if their animals cannot consent? I would propose a simple ethic: do no more harm than a non-zoophile would. Don't have sex with an animal who isn't yours. Don't have sex with an animal who is physically unable to have sex with you without pain. Don't have sex with an animal who doesn't want to. Learn the species' body language and how that species signals whether they want sex or not, and don't "go" if the animal is telling you "stop."
(/r/zoophilia, let me know if you think I got something wrong.)
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how ridiculous
is? What the fuck man. If you don't care how you appear to the people there, I would just go up the hierarchy and complain about an animal ethics professor in an animal ethics course forbidding discussion about an animal ethics topic. Seriously, this is his idea of academia?
Anyway, if we accept the argument that animals can't consent like humans can, then why even try to apply the concept? It clearly doesn't make sense. We should rather ask if any actual harm, not just "abstract harm" is done i.e. if there even is a victim.