(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

serai
2007-01-11 05:24 am UTC (link)

Or simply, a child might peaceably go along with sexual intercourse, but that doesn't mean he or she knows the full weight of what's going on, and thus, the abuse and rape is still there.

Sure, when you're talking about a child. But these aren't children. They're just not human, which is not the same thing at all. Do adult animals not have the ability to recognize sexual intent, and react with either consent or objection?

I guess my problem is the automatic assumption that animals have no ability to make their own choices when they do it all the time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kahrohseh
2007-01-11 05:38 am UTC (link)

Show me an animal with the cognitive ability above a 4-year-old (the rated intelligence of the world's smartest chimps, iirc) and I'll grant you that animal might have an inkling that that human is doing more than shoving a flushed stiff appendage up its genitals, and thus have an informed understanding of what's going on and what it should do about it.

I'm not saying there aren't smart animals out there, but it's a completely different level. A passive mare that doesn't kick when its owner is fucking it doesn't signify an informed, mature participant engaging in a highly symbolic and culturally significant act, it shows a mare that is acclimated and trusting of the-creature-that-brings-the-food enough to let it stick something small and funny in its back hole.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 06:22 am UTC (link)
	Funny, that's what an extraterrestrial of superior intelligence might say about the average housewife. I guess it's all in the point of perspective, eh? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mindset 2007-01-11 06:40 am UTC (link)
	And when the theoretical extraterrestrial of theoretical superior intelligence fucks the theoretical average housewife while his theoretical colleagues bemoan his theoretical ethics, then perhaps we can use that argument in a debate of non-theoretical horsefucking. You fail at logic, perspective, and life. FOAD, please. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 08:09 am UTC (link)
	My, my, how very civilized you are. Do you always end conversations with people that way? Or only those you don't agree with? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mindset 2007-01-11 08:38 am UTC (link)
	Only with fuckwits. :D (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 09:13 am UTC (link)
	LOL Well, considering your conversational flair, you'd be the authority on fuckwittery, I'd say. By the by, next time you want to get all up in somebody's face, I'd suggest you choose someone who actually is on the other side of the argument, and not just asking questions about the topic. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	skewed_tartan 2007-01-11 06:53 am UTC (link)
	Where in the HELL did that one come from? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	jetamors 2007-01-11 08:09 am UTC (link)
	...And if those being actually existed, it would be wrong for them to have sex with us. What's your point? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 08:11 am UTC (link)
	sigh Read my post again. I'm not defending sex with animals. I'm interested in the concept of "consent" and what that means when we apply it to beings different from us, on whatever grounds. If you'd read my post more carefully, you'd know that. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jetamors 2007-01-11 08:17 am UTC (link)
	This is not the place for Your Thoughts On Consent. Unless you're going to be funny or hilariously wanky, go away. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 08:20 am UTC (link)
	And you're following this comment thread why, exactly? For the laughs, is it? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jetamors 2007-01-11 08:36 am UTC (link)
	Sorry, you're still not funny. You should spice it up with a hilarious macro of some sort! For example, you could have appended the following to your previous response: and possibly someone somewhere might have chuckled. As it is, I'm afraid I'll be the one applying to you. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2007-01-11 09:11 am UTC (link)
	shrugs Fine, whatever. Have a nice day! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mcity 2007-01-11 05:19 pm UTC (link)
	When did his head get so big? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lottelita 2007-01-11 09:00 am UTC (link)
	OTF isn't the place for thoughts on yaoi? I know you're not new. Other explanation plz? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jetamors
2007-01-11 06:49 pm UTC (link)

You see, my friend, I have a dream.

I have a dream that someday otf_wank will be a place where people trade witty quips on the nature of a particular wank. I have a dream that the only people bringing wank in the comments will be idiotic trolls, whom we can all band together to LOL at no matter what our opinion on the issue. I have a dream of time when otf_wank actually brings the funny.

It won't happen in a day. It may not happen in a week. But if we all band together, someday, possibly as early as next month, this place may be transformed into a shining city on a hill, mocking all and sundry wankers without getting distracted by the "real issues".

(And yeah, blah blah hypocrisycakes. BUT MY POINT IS STILL VALID.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

aposiopetic
2007-01-11 07:22 am UTC (link)

Do adult animals not have the ability to recognize sexual intent, and react with either consent or objection?

I could be completely talking out of my ass here (and I'm sick and it's late, so please also forgive the possibly horrible analogy I'm going to make), but no, I don't think can (always) recognize sexual intent. An animal's frame of reference is completely different to that of a human's. If they're presented with a situation that they don't understand, either by observation or being hardwired for it, then it's hard for them to consent to it (or, alternatively, consent to it without realizing all of the rammifications). For example, like when creepyguy apparently covered his dick in oats. The horse was thinking, "Ooh, a snack :D" and went along with it, while the guy was thinking "Blowjob! She loves me ♥" The horse went along with it, but I doubt that it knew that it was involved in a sexual act at the time.

Heck, if people can miss intent (example: my icon could appear to be waving at someone in an attempt to bring them closer when she is instead going "Is Glinda going to have to ~~slap~~ drown a bitch?"), then it's definitely easy for animals to miss it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -