I have a friend who is a student in the medical field, when I came out to him he seem to be just a little weirded out, but wasn't really negative about it, he just said people are different and sort of that was it. Later on we had a discussion and he said animals can't consent because they can't say yes or no, I replied by saying "dogs can't say run but yet they do, birds can't say fly but yet they do, so verbally being able to communicate seems to be an irrelevant point regarding whether or not an animal has the ability to do so or not." I've been trying to come up with new ways to argue against the consent argument, because I feel that using the old argument of no one cares about them when they're being eaten so why care now makes it look as if I don't care either and that doesn't reflect my opinion. Just wondering is there a better argument?
/r/zoophilia archive
Consent comes in many forms and many varieties. Explicit vs. implicit (in humans: saying "yes" vs. a nod and a smile) seems to be the problem he has, but there is also "informed" (humans can't do this anything like as well as they think they can), and "enthusiastic" (which is what I think people should require, given the impossibility of "informed").
"Enthusiastic" consent has the advantage of making implicit consent more explicit, but if you will let me put my skeptic hat on: until we have a Doctor Dolittle style translator app on our phones, I think it's going to be rather difficult to convince some people about our interpretation of their body language.
I find it difficult to argue against assertions done with words that don't have a real agreed on definition. Like "consent". If a dog jumps on someone's back and starts to fuck them, why is this not an expression of a form of consent? Why is this form of consent not sufficient?
With that I mean: The negative consequences of a dog who shows his form of consent but not "proper consent", what ever that is, always sound very abstract. So a dog likes to sometimes jump on his owner's back and fucks him. What is the dog actually suffering from?
There really aren't many people who are willing to explain what their idea of consent really is and why they believe exactly this idea is the right one. You can try reading what Piers Beirne writes, but I don't really "get" his view and I don't think it's very convincing...
His view seems pretty straight forward to me. Pretty much straight from feminist theory and ignores any way in which an animal might express itself. While the animal might bite you today, it'd be easy to shoot it in the head tomorrow. Of course, he is coming from the idea that we need to figure out a way to codify it in law so we can "protect" animals from abuse.
I understand what he says, but I don't get the viewpoint. Is it only sex? You can not give a dog a free choice whether to do something or not to do something? When you throw the ball, is he coerced to run after it? Or can he express that he doesn't feel like playing right now?
We can certainly force some animal to do something. I could certainly force some human to do something. The fact that it can be done doesn't automatically make everything done a process of "possible coercion". It really is an argument that wants to ignore the consequences but seeks some kind of theoretical reason to criminalize a thing.
For me, it is the opposite of the way we should think about laws and leads to all kinds of bad law. I'm for harm reduction which looks at the law as a solution to a problem, not looking for supposed problems that the law can solve.
I would point out that the old "meat" argument is for getting people who aren't thinking to think just a little bit. It is sometimes effective for that but it does seem to imply that you don't care, which is not true of course.
For dog folk, I like to describe a scenario in which you're going to pat a dogs head. Are you going to pat one that is raising it's hackles and lip showing teeth? Okay, how about one who is wagging it's tail and with very relaxed features? So obviously the first one ya wouldn't and the second one ya would. Is that not the definition of communication? Of an animal expressing a preference? A dog or a horse can be as enthusiastic as that in regards to sex. Usually they'll bring up "informed" consent at this point and I'd then discuss what an animal has to be informed about exactly? There isn't a social consequence to the animal, they won't be suffering mental anguish...
Edit to add: There is also the "you trained them to do that" which I think is an indication of how sickly we view animals as a society. We take their agency away at every turn, give them no choice but to perform as we desire, and when they are not performing that way, something must have been done to them to prevent them from behaving like a robot. I tend to counter this with the fact that the only reward my animals get for boffing me is they get to boff me. Does that mean that sex is a positive re-enforcement to the training, does that mean withholding sex is actually a negative re-enforcement to train them to not have sex? Giving sex is like giving a treat? Well, yea, much more effective too, but they don't like it when I say that.
People aren't even aware they are training the sex out of their dogs and when that doesn't work, off come the nuts.
Okay, nuff ranting, back to work you!
Tell your friend he is a student for god's sake. The statement he made is a hypothesis: "Animals cannot consent". Now ask him how the scientific method works with that. It is in fact his job to disprove that animals DO consent. Not yours to positively prove that they can do that. Because it is impossible (a weird kink of our universe) to positively prove something. You have to negate all the alternatives. So your student now needs to make the alternative hypothesis to his initial one: that animals CAN consent. And now he needs to set out delivering proof that shows this is not true.
The thing is this is frontloaded to make you win. Not because I am being unfair, but because your friend is wrong. He might be able to find a lot of anecdotes or a few vets or some people's opinion to "proof" that "Animals cannot consent". But note the all-encompassing nature of that statement. It addresses all critters, and doesn't limit time or location or opportunity. So if you manage to demonstrate ONE animal that apparently enjoys sex and freely engages (or continues) with it, you just delivered the counterexample that kills his statement. It doesn't matter if he piles up 5 Billion opinions that animals cannot consent. If you demonstrate one animal that consents once all that is negated and his hypothesis is done. And honestly, not being kinky or weird here, if you have your butt and a male dog stud available, it should be easy as eating pie to show a willing animal engaging in sex. if your friend says he doesn't want to watch he also lost: People who refuse to see possible counterproof to their hypothesis can hardly be granted that their stand is correct.
BOOM.
Okok, there is a toned down version you can play with him: Again, tell him to use scientific reasoning and philosophically sound discovery of knowledge. Maeutics will work (I might suck on horsepenis but I am not stupid, ey): He should write the statement down. Now ask him to look at it. What animals? The way it is written there, those are ALL critters in existence. And we just wrote this down. Just so. How many critters are there in existence? A lot. How many one could possibly have sex with? In fact, how many mammals are there that are of decent size. Let him list some: Dogs, horses, goats, cows... Even after narrowing the categories down from all of them to just the mammals, he'll not manage to list them all instantly. What about pigs? What about deer? What about foxes? What about .... (prepare a long list if you are bad at spontaneously adding to his suggestions). Now, we struggled to list all animals of even a small category. It took as much longer than coming up with the statement, deciding it was true, and writing it down. Look at it again. Could we really have considered ALL animals? Without ANY effort, obviously, to discover all these animals' habits, usual behaviors, and potential (for now hypothetical) inclinations for humans? Are dolphins so similar to cows that the statement can hold true for both? Or dogs and horses comparable? One is a hunter, the other a pray, naturally. Do monkeys show the same sex and general behavior than - say - big cats?
Obviously, we have to admit we didn't invest much actual thinking into deciding this statement was true. It cannot possibly hold for ALL animals right here, right now without a lot more discovery effort, for so many species that are so different are included here. So some animals might consent to sex sometimes , as the absolute he wanted just fell away as highly impossible. The next "most impossible" statement still available is the one I just gave. And I guess we can all live with that.
BOOM again.
Also build him a golden bridge after defeating him: It's ok to be disgusted by it (the likely source of why he "thinks" - in reality feels that his stance is true). But that doesn't make it ok to get involved if other people like doing it. His disgust is his problem, not yours. And you are not going to have sex in the townsquare, like everyone else. Being disgusted is ok, it doesn't change reality however.
I always use petting as an argument. Everyone can attest to its truth and the body language is clear. Dogs consent to petting, so why is there a lack of consent in something else in which they do not consider "sacred" as humans do? And if "implications" or "ramifications" are brought up, ask them to state what implications or ramifications said animal faces.
Of you want to be blunt, I like to tell people, imagine trying to fuck a horse who doesn't consent. How well do you see that going?
What kind of turned my mind was things like dog sports. This isn't an argument against sports, but dog sports carry risks greater than sex does to an appropriately sized animal.
Is it wrong to have sex with someone who doesn't speak any English because they can't say "yes" or "no"? I wouldn't say so.