Aight, I know this comment is gonna bite me later, but I gotta speak my piece. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Beastiality, zoophilia, whatever you wanna call it… It isn’t always a case of raping the animal. What is consent? It is ultimately an extremely arbitrary idea that humans fling around. For human-on-human interactions, obviously society has cemented it as something with clear-cut lines and rules. But, that’s pretty much where it ends for us. Consent from animals is not something we ever seriously consider in any way.
Think about it. Did domesticated species, which we have dominated for our benefit, consent? Do dogs consent to anything we put them through as our pets? Do cats? Birds? Bugs?! The answer is no. We cannot communicate with other animals. So we forgo consent when it comes to the animals we interact with. Even when it comes to things that really has no direct benefit to the animal.
All I’m saying is, rape is rape, for sure. But when it comes to inter-species erotica, as a man once called it, it can’t all be rape. Because animals rely on instinct more than anything, especially when it comes to sex. I guarantee a horse will show you when it doesn’t appreciate it being touched in the no-no spot.
If you can adequately prove to me that the animal understood and consented then what happens between you and the goat is your own business.
It takes more than enthusiastic participation: it also requires the ability to appropriately conceptualize what’s being consented to. It’s why drugging someone and then using their enthusiasm as consent doesn’t fly, or why a 13 year old can’t consent to a relationship with someone much older than them.
A goat understands goat sex well enough that we all generally agree they can consent if they’re obviously into it.
A goat does not understand interspecies sex well enough to consent, regardless of their interest or arousal.
At best your claim is that sometimes it’s closer to “statutorily raping” an animal, commonly known as “rape”.
So put the horse back in the barn before you let the horse out of the barn.
Consent does not matter. To say it matters in this instance is insanely hypocritical. Unless you have that stance on literally every other aspect of our dominating other species for both our and their own benefit.
Statutory rape is a legal term for humans. It is not something that applies to other animals. Rape is rape. Since consent does not matter with animals, the best we can do is infer using context. Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person? Etc.
If, as you say, consent doesn’t matter for animals, then you can’t rape one at all and we can fall back to the more conventional “abuse”, “mistreatment” or “animal cruelty”.
Your “contextual inference” seems to be the inference of consent, so I’m confused by what you mean. If consent doesn’t matter then clearly it doesn’t matter if the goat is tied to a pole.
I’m not seeing the hypocrisy. If you kill a goat, you’re a goat killer. If you buy a puppy, you’re a puppy buyer. If you fuck a goat you’re a goat fucker, and unless you passed the impossibly high bar of proving consent, you’re a non-consensual goat fucker, commonly called a “goat rapist”.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that animals have no understanding of consent, I think the issue is that there’s a communication barrier in dealing with humans (I.e. they can’t say ‘yes’)
Zoologists have a pretty robust understanding of rape and consent within the animal kingdom, but it’s always through observing interactions between animals.
The point is consent is something that doesn’t matter to the conversation of people who do the deed with animals. I think a much more productive line of questioning would be: Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person?
Most of our domesticated species actively and wilfully participated in their own domestication in one way or another, because they realized that hanging around humans was good for their survival. Especially cats. They were basically unchanged and never selectively bred past “hey my good mouser had kittens, you want one neighbor?” up until about 200 years ago.
Animals can absolutely tell you “fuck right off I do not want that right now,” but they can also be trained to tolerate a lot against their own wishes (i.e. veterinary procedures) Which… Don’t use that against them just for your pleasure. That’s sadistic. And gross.
Add in that most female animals do not engage in sex for pleasure, barring a select few species that should not be kept as pets, and you have your answer. Don’t be gross. Keep your deviancy to yourself and your chosen, consenting, adult, human partners.
Your best argument is it’s gross. That’s something I agree on. My argument is that not all beastiality is rape as defined by our understanding of consent with animals.
The exceptions for “not all bestiality is rape” would be so incredibly rare and stupid to attempt and still gross that they can be ignored, unless you want to offer to be fucked by a male dolphin or bonobo… I don’t suggest the orca option though.
Idk how porn brained you have to be to conflate owning/training a pet with raping animals and whether this a shitpost or you actually think you cooked but approximately 0% of your comment holds any actual logical meaning
Aight, I know this comment is gonna bite me later, but I gotta speak my piece. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Beastiality, zoophilia, whatever you wanna call it… It isn’t always a case of raping the animal. What is consent? It is ultimately an extremely arbitrary idea that humans fling around. For human-on-human interactions, obviously society has cemented it as something with clear-cut lines and rules. But, that’s pretty much where it ends for us. Consent from animals is not something we ever seriously consider in any way.
Think about it. Did domesticated species, which we have dominated for our benefit, consent? Do dogs consent to anything we put them through as our pets? Do cats? Birds? Bugs?! The answer is no. We cannot communicate with other animals. So we forgo consent when it comes to the animals we interact with. Even when it comes to things that really has no direct benefit to the animal.
All I’m saying is, rape is rape, for sure. But when it comes to inter-species erotica, as a man once called it, it can’t all be rape. Because animals rely on instinct more than anything, especially when it comes to sex. I guarantee a horse will show you when it doesn’t appreciate it being touched in the no-no spot.
Okey doke. Bring on the rain. 🙂↕️
I don’t really care about the hill you’ve chosen to die on, but I will sit here and watch what happens.
I expected more tbh. The day is still young, though.
If you can adequately prove to me that the animal understood and consented then what happens between you and the goat is your own business.
It takes more than enthusiastic participation: it also requires the ability to appropriately conceptualize what’s being consented to. It’s why drugging someone and then using their enthusiasm as consent doesn’t fly, or why a 13 year old can’t consent to a relationship with someone much older than them.
A goat understands goat sex well enough that we all generally agree they can consent if they’re obviously into it.
A goat does not understand interspecies sex well enough to consent, regardless of their interest or arousal.
At best your claim is that sometimes it’s closer to “statutorily raping” an animal, commonly known as “rape”.
So put the horse back in the barn before you let the horse out of the barn.
Could probably work out an arrangement with dolphins and higher apes.
Bro, you basically implied I can’t consent.
How so? Elaborate.
it also requires the ability to appropriately conceptualize what’s being consented to.
I have no idea, still up for it.
Consent does not matter. To say it matters in this instance is insanely hypocritical. Unless you have that stance on literally every other aspect of our dominating other species for both our and their own benefit.
Statutory rape is a legal term for humans. It is not something that applies to other animals. Rape is rape. Since consent does not matter with animals, the best we can do is infer using context. Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person? Etc.
If, as you say, consent doesn’t matter for animals, then you can’t rape one at all and we can fall back to the more conventional “abuse”, “mistreatment” or “animal cruelty”.
Your “contextual inference” seems to be the inference of consent, so I’m confused by what you mean. If consent doesn’t matter then clearly it doesn’t matter if the goat is tied to a pole.
I’m not seeing the hypocrisy. If you kill a goat, you’re a goat killer. If you buy a puppy, you’re a puppy buyer. If you fuck a goat you’re a goat fucker, and unless you passed the impossibly high bar of proving consent, you’re a non-consensual goat fucker, commonly called a “goat rapist”.
You know what, this has actually given me something to think about. I’ll concede. Thank you for challenging my view on this.
We let cats go wherever they want and do not touch them without consent (platonic sense).
That’s called being a bad cat owner.
Mr Hands?
From the grave. OOOoooooOoOo
WAT
You heard me, Texas Dan. 🧐
I don’t think anyone is arguing that animals have no understanding of consent, I think the issue is that there’s a communication barrier in dealing with humans (I.e. they can’t say ‘yes’)
Zoologists have a pretty robust understanding of rape and consent within the animal kingdom, but it’s always through observing interactions between animals.
The point is consent is something that doesn’t matter to the conversation of people who do the deed with animals. I think a much more productive line of questioning would be: Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person?
I disagree, and I don’t feel like talking about this further.
So…
Most of our domesticated species actively and wilfully participated in their own domestication in one way or another, because they realized that hanging around humans was good for their survival. Especially cats. They were basically unchanged and never selectively bred past “hey my good mouser had kittens, you want one neighbor?” up until about 200 years ago.
Animals can absolutely tell you “fuck right off I do not want that right now,” but they can also be trained to tolerate a lot against their own wishes (i.e. veterinary procedures) Which… Don’t use that against them just for your pleasure. That’s sadistic. And gross.
Add in that most female animals do not engage in sex for pleasure, barring a select few species that should not be kept as pets, and you have your answer. Don’t be gross. Keep your deviancy to yourself and your chosen, consenting, adult, human partners.
Your best argument is it’s gross. That’s something I agree on. My argument is that not all beastiality is rape as defined by our understanding of consent with animals.
The exceptions for “not all bestiality is rape” would be so incredibly rare and stupid to attempt and still gross that they can be ignored, unless you want to offer to be fucked by a male dolphin or bonobo… I don’t suggest the orca option though.
Don’t fuck animals dude.
Idk how porn brained you have to be to conflate owning/training a pet with raping animals and whether this a shitpost or you actually think you cooked but approximately 0% of your comment holds any actual logical meaning
Idk how you think you cooked with this braindead comment, if we’re being honest with each other.
My guy you literally generated your own custom definitions of words to use it as a way to compare teaching your dog to speak and sodomizing your dog
Damn, you’re just a whole heaping bag of word-vomit aren’t ya?
Coming from the guy who wrote multiple paragraphs trying to argue for bestiality lmao
And yet you can’t actually argue against me. From one bullshitter to another, good effort(not really).
You need to be sprayed without consent.
Three separate comments? Someone’s upset-y spaghetti.