So, first of all, I'm not Zoo, I've just been talking to a guy who is, and he brought up some good arguments for why he thought that bestiality/zoophilia/whatever the f*ck you wanna call it (I'm not really down with the lingo), wasn't always so inherently bad. Although, when I brought up that by the proper legal definition, animals can't really consent, he did reply by pointing out ways that our society exploits animals without their consent. And although I agreed with him on that, I didn't see it as disproving the consent argument specifically. I just saw it as a point for why our society needs to be more wary of the consent laws regarding animals. So, I was just hoping to see if anybody here had something that specifically disproves the consent argument, instead of just pointing out it's hypocrisy, as I don't believe that takes away from the legitimacy of the argument, just the person using it. And just to be clear, I may not be all that for bestiality and at the moment I may think that's it's not all that morally okay, but I do want to be on your side, I'd really rather believe something that is already happening in the world is okay over believing it's a form of rape. Sorry if that was a bit long-winded.
EDIT: Sorry to have not mentioned it, when I was talking to the guy that I mentioned at the start of this, most of the argument wasn't just about whether or not it's morally okay, but also if it's legally okay, didn't mention it, my bad.
In an interview with vice someone put it like this:
So that's clearly some form of consent.
It may not be the proper legal definition. But then, what exactly is that anyway? Not a rhetorical question. And how exactly is it decided what "level of consent" an animal needs to give before it can have sex with 1) a human 2) another animal of the same species?
Well, from my understanding, the legal definition of consent is that both participants not only need to want to participate, but need to understand and know the possible repercussions of their participation both positive and negative. And although I do agree with you on the fact that animals can give a degree of consent, they don't have the cognitive function to understand the repercussions, so it's not the degree needed for legal sex. (Also, I forgot to mention that the argument I was in with the guy I mentioned was also about whether or not it should be legal, which I have just added in now)
I don't understand why the legal definition for human consent should be applied to animals. I of course agree that it's important for the animal to consent in a physical way (as discussed elsewhere in this thread), but the second part doesn't make sense. Assuming the human in the scenario cares for the animal, ensures no harm is done and that it's mutually enjoyable, exactly what "repercussions" does the animal lack the ability to comprehend?
By that definition pretty much all sex is rape/non-con. I don't think any of us know ALL of the possible positive and negative repercussions of sex. There are so many things that can happen as a result of sex, from the bad (a huge list of stds, getting the shit beaten out of you by a jealous ex just to name a couple) to the good (Marriage, love, a lasting relationship). I mean you having sex with someone could kill them in innumerable different ways. For example, you could accidentally get them pregnant and she has a miscarriage with complications and dies. That would be a direct repercussion of your having sex with her. If you don't make sure she understands this and every other possible repercussion before sex by your definition you just raped her.
What are the repercussions? And can we really claim that humans understand the repercussions of sex?
Unfortunately, for animals who have sex with humans, the repercussions can include that the police kidnap both of them, lock up the owner, and then euthanise the animal. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say this would surprise most horny animals. Of course, this repercussion is entirely down to it being illegal, and would disappear immediately if it became socially acceptable.
The other repercussions of sex that I can think of are pregnancy (how many unwanted births are there in our species?) and disease (25.6% of Swaziland have HIV according to Wikipedia).
As I'm also interested in the real truth rather than just the belief that conveniences me the most, what other repercussions did you have in mind?
Does a horse understand that a jumping competition could ruin his legs? Does a flying disc dog know he could throw out his back?
Aside from social consequences that animals don't care about, the potential physical injuries should be no more than natural mating and AI. If human-animal sexual contact had extraordinary physical and psychological effects, we should be seeing this with dogs that undergo semen collection and artificial insemination.
Animals consent and tell you what they want non-verbally. You pay attention to body language and let the animal show you he/she is interested. I mean with a human partner you don't usually ask if they consent to sex you go by there body language and actions. It is the same with any other animal.
Animals use body language to express their feelings. While they can't agree to a legal contract, each species has its own unique language that humans can understand and respect.
Personally, I like Neil Levy's explanation of this. It's clear from a variety of anecdotes, videos, historical documents, etc. that animals do, in some cases, physically act as though they would like to have sex in the moment, whether with each other or with human beings. This doesn't match up with informed consent (which by your legal definition we'll just call consent for short), but it does some of the important hallmarks of consent (shared intentions to do something, like have sex), so we'll call that consent*.
For humans, the reason consent* isn't enough in general is that they will at some point gain or regain the capacity for consent, and along with that the capacity to recall the previously nonconsensual sex and be traumatized by the memory and/or by the social stigma attached to it. Adult nonhuman animals, by and large, do not have such capacity and have essentially all of the ability to sense the world around them and make decisions that they will ever have, meaning that no trauma is likely to occur after the fact from some realization of previous sexual encounters being "wrong" in some way. So, consent* (along with precautions to make the sexual encounter more pleasurable than harmful to the animal) may be sufficient for human-animal sex to be morally acceptable.
Legally, animals and human beings are placed on such different strata that I fail to see how the lack of capacity to consent can consistently be held to give animals some right not to be approached by humans sexually... except for purposes of animal husbandry or veterinary work, in which the animal can be unwillingly impregnated or cut off completely from sexual development, depending on the purposes of the humans involved. From the standpoint of the law (in the United States), animals are property, except in specific cases stated by animal cruelty laws with enough loopholes to make them toothless with regard to well established agricultural practices. The idea that they have rights at all is a contentious one, though morally I think they should have many of the same rights as human beings.
Can animals consent to being kept as pets their whole lives? Can they consent to working for a human without ever getting paid besides food and shelter? No, but we don't talk about slavery or employee underpayment when referring to animals because human definitions don't apply to them. As long as animal is not getting hurt and is happy about its situation, there's no harm. While sex with animal may technically count as non-consensual simply because they can't say "yes" in plain English, as long as they are not being forced into anything and are expressing enjoyment in the act, there no reason to judge anymore than judging you for keeping a pet that is well taken care of and happy.
What's the difference between having sex with a child and an animal, exactly?