|
|
Serai (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} serai) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank, |
Hm. I've been watching this wank with interest, and I've got a question about this issue.
Now, I'm not trying to defend these people (I like humans, thank you, and hell, men are enough trouble on their own), but the whole "consent" thing puzzles me. People say having sex with an animal is wrong because they can't consent, but where does the idea that they can't consent come from? Seems to me that if a horse stands there and lets somebody pork her, unless she's in hobbles, she's not objecting. Because you know, if a horse doesn't want you to fuck her, you definitely aren't gonna fuck her. A good kick from one of those animals can do major damage to a human, and is hardly any effort at all to the horse. (Now, if she's hobbled, that's another thing entirely, and of course the lack of consent is relevant there, just like it was for that lady with the ass-loving boyfriend.)
People who are passionate about this subject seem to treat animals as if they were children, but from what I understand, the people doing this stuff aren't screwing immature animals, but adult animals. To claim that an adult animals cannot "consent" to something - whatever it is - is at best disingenuous. (Anybody who has ever tried to wash a cat who hates water would laugh at the idea that an animal cannot express either consent or the lack thereof.) It's pretty easy to tell with most animals when they don't want something done to them, and the folks who object on the grounds of consent seem to be assuming that 1) all these people are beating and/or terrifying their animals into submission, or 2) the animals are all just standing there with no reaction, which is the only scenario that I can think of that would justify the whole across-the-board idea that animals can never consent to sex.
For my part, this whole aspect of the controversy smacks of camouflage. I get the distinct impression that people are clothing a cultural taboo in the garb of Defender Of The Innocent, when it's really just about OMGEWWWWW. Not that I disagree with them. I'm not one to condemn weird sex, but there's no sexual attractiveness in animals, for my money, unless it's the kind of sexy that makes something beautiful to look at and touch rather than actual fucking.
(I hope my viewpoint is clear here. I'm just curious about this aspect of it, in an intellectual way, and would like to know what other people here think of the whole "consent" thing and what it says about people's attitudes towards animals.)
Now, I'm not trying to defend these people (I like humans, thank you, and hell, men are enough trouble on their own), but the whole "consent" thing puzzles me. People say having sex with an animal is wrong because they can't consent, but where does the idea that they can't consent come from? Seems to me that if a horse stands there and lets somebody pork her, unless she's in hobbles, she's not objecting. Because you know, if a horse doesn't want you to fuck her, you definitely aren't gonna fuck her. A good kick from one of those animals can do major damage to a human, and is hardly any effort at all to the horse. (Now, if she's hobbled, that's another thing entirely, and of course the lack of consent is relevant there, just like it was for that lady with the ass-loving boyfriend.)
People who are passionate about this subject seem to treat animals as if they were children, but from what I understand, the people doing this stuff aren't screwing immature animals, but adult animals. To claim that an adult animals cannot "consent" to something - whatever it is - is at best disingenuous. (Anybody who has ever tried to wash a cat who hates water would laugh at the idea that an animal cannot express either consent or the lack thereof.) It's pretty easy to tell with most animals when they don't want something done to them, and the folks who object on the grounds of consent seem to be assuming that 1) all these people are beating and/or terrifying their animals into submission, or 2) the animals are all just standing there with no reaction, which is the only scenario that I can think of that would justify the whole across-the-board idea that animals can never consent to sex.
For my part, this whole aspect of the controversy smacks of camouflage. I get the distinct impression that people are clothing a cultural taboo in the garb of Defender Of The Innocent, when it's really just about OMGEWWWWW. Not that I disagree with them. I'm not one to condemn weird sex, but there's no sexual attractiveness in animals, for my money, unless it's the kind of sexy that makes something beautiful to look at and touch rather than actual fucking.
(I hope my viewpoint is clear here. I'm just curious about this aspect of it, in an intellectual way, and would like to know what other people here think of the whole "consent" thing and what it says about people's attitudes towards animals.)
Post a comment in response:
