(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

serai
2007-01-11 03:36 am UTC (link)

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.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	sarai 2007-01-11 03:52 am UTC (link)
	Serious Bizness? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vengeance_bean 2007-01-11 04:17 am UTC (link)
	When adult animals have the right to vote, they have the right to consent. They are not intellectually capable of consenting to sex in a legal manner, and a human being should not have sex with another living being that cannot consent. Boom. Also: ARGH why am I perpetuating serious business in OTF? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 05:20 am UTC (link)
	Why do you say they are not intellectually capable of consenting? Animals consent/object to things all the time. That's why I was asking about this. Just because they can't talk doesn't mean they don't know what they want or don't want and are unable to express their wishes. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)