Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
I'll bite since this thread does suck but don't expect much after this response.
I was gonna bump it for you but I forgot it's locked. All your statements above are discussed in the thread. If it's only a matter of consent as you claim your stance is, than how do you feel about allowing animals to f*ck you when uncoerced. Clearly their desire to do so is enough to be considered consent, so is it still wrong?
Your "fairly straightforward" argument gets thrown out the window with that one question. If it was so straightforward it wouldn't have created multiple pages of discussion and arguing.
|
First of all, animals use rape as a form of asserting dominance. That's usually what's going on when an animal tries to have sex with you. And since there's no way to effectively communicate with animals on such matters, there is no way to tell what their motives are in a given situation, and even if you thought an animal was "consenting" there is no possible way to know for sure. Even intelligent and hyper sexual animals like dolphins have no possible way of accurately conveying such desires, while simultaneously displaying that they're making an informed decision. So yeah, it actually is still a fairly straightforward issue.
When a living being doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand what they're committing to, or simply has no way of reasonably conveying their desires without doubt, they can not give consent. This is the same reason for why having sex with someone who has certain mental illnesses/disabilities is considered rape. If a severely mentally handicapped person started trying to have sex with you, you have an obligation to get out of the situation without goading them on, and if you don't and simply sit back and allow things to unfold, you're raping them. The same principle applies to animals.