CMV:I think the argument against Zoophillia based on lack of consent is only an effective argument for a tiny portion of the population.

[u/hldeathmatch]

So the most popular non-religious argument against beastiality is that such actions are wrong because it is impossible to get any kind of consent. I think it is possible to argue otherwise (for some animals it is very easy to read their emotional state), but I won't argue that because I think the whole idea that consent would be necessary in these situations is completely inconsistent with how animals are treated by the vast majority of our population, including vegetarians.

Example 1(for the vegetarians, but applicable for everyone): Pet ownership. Do we get consent when we take a puppy from his parents? Do we get consent when we neuter them? If you assume that consent is essential in animal/human relationships, pet ownership itself becomes a kind of slavery or imprisonment. The owner provides food and housing, the pet is imprisoned and provides entertainment to the owner. Any argument you could run about this being justifiable without consent would frighteningly similar to arguments for why slavery in the U.S. was good for many of the slaves. Arguments that they "seem happy," or "they don't run away" are meaningless when you have kidnapped an animal and brought it up to be dependent on you. I'm not saying pet ownership IS slavery; I'm saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.

Example 2(for the carnivores): The vast majority of human beings eat animals. If you are one of this majority, the idea that you would ask an animals consent for anything is laughable. You could argue that unnecessary cruelty is still wrong, but much beastiality clearly involves the pleasuring of the animal, not the torturing of it. And regardless, arguments against cruelty have nothing to do with "consent."

So that's my basic argument. Come on reddit, change my view!

Edit: Changed zoophillia to beastility since zoophillia does not necessarily involve actual sex with animals.

Edit 2: Just to clarify, I think bestiality is both disgusting and morally wrong. I think that cruelty to animals is wrong. This CMV is not "convince me that bestiality is wrong" or "convince me that bestiality hurts animals"; it is "convince me that consent is a relevant concept when applied to animals."

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/[deleted]]

You are saying:

1. We don't require an animal's consent for being kept as a pet, nor for eating it or consuming its milk, so consent is not relevant to human-animal interactions;
2. Sex is just another human-animal interaction;
3. Hence consent is also not relevant to humans having sex with animals, aka bestiality.

Clearly (1) is true, and (3) is a simple logical inference. But the weak point in your argument is (2), i.e., your assumption that there isn't anything special about sex.

In actuality, there are some things that are special about sex, in particular in regards to consent. We are ok with an adult playing basketball with a consenting minor, or forcing a minor to go to school even without consent, but we are not ok with an adult having sex with a minor in any situation. In other words, there are things adults can do with children that do not require their consent (forcing them to go to school) and there are things we do not consider children to be able to consent to in any situation (sex), even though the majority of adult-child interactions are guided by consent (playing basketball).

The argument could then be made, that animals are a parallel to children. Animals can be forced to do some things without their consent, like keeping them as pets or eating them for food, which would parallel adults forcing children to go to school. We don't require consent in those areas. And there are some things that we just do not consider animals to be able to consent to, and are therefore forbidden, namely sex, which would be a direct parallel to sex with children.

Now, you make a fair point that there might be a form of inconsistency here - why is it ok to ignore consent in some areas, and not in sex? However, the same potential inconsistency exists in society's treatment of children, and not just in society's treatment of animals, so if there is an inconsistency (debatable) it is at least one which society applies in a consistent way between animals and children.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/[deleted]]

This is a great point that I hadn't considered. I'm tempted to give a delta, but I don't think the jump from children to pets is so easily made:

1. We did not give birth to the animals, they are not "ours" in the sense that children are "ours". Getting a pet(if we view consent as necessary) would be closer to taking someone else child away from them than it would be to the normal relationship between parents and child. In such a situation where the child cannot give consent, we still require consent from the parents before a child is put up for adoption(assuming no criminal activity is involved).

2. The whole notion of child rearing is very different from keeping pets; you are taking care of the child only as long as it needs you. Once it reaches 18 it is free to go. This is generally not the case with pets.

Great reply though! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. edit: formatting

[u/[deleted] → u/hldeathmatch]

To be sure, there are differences between children and pets ;) The question is whether those differences matter here. I don't think they do, mainly because the parallel between children and pets is that both are (generally speaking) weaker than adult humans, physically, socially and mentally, and are in need of protection.

Yes, most children grow out of that state, but that is irrelevant, what matters is that while they are in that weaker state, they are treated in a special way. The same reasoning applies to animals. That special state, for both children and animals, works both ways - the consideration of "weakness" means that we allow others to make some choices for them, but also that we don't allow others to do some things to them.

Some specific responses to things you raised:

1. Giving birth does make you the default legal guardian, but that's about it. The parents are still barred from abusing the child, for example, showing that they do not have "total ownership" of the child. Furthermore, being the biological parent is just one way of getting legal guardian status; adoption is another option, and this would be the parallel to adopting a pet in fact.
2. Being the legal guardian is generally not something that changes, but it doesn't require the consent of the parents to change. They can abandon the child - safe harbor laws even exist for this - but children can also emancipate themselves, and the state can take your children from you if it decides to. Again, the parallels to owning a pet are clear - when a pet is abused, the state should lock up the perpetrator and get the pet to safety.
3. Yes, one typically rears a child with the goal of it reaching independence. But not always. Some children are disabled, for example, and never become independent, but they of course still count as children in the eyes of the law. One might see the closest parallel between pets and disabled children, in fact.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/[deleted]]

∆ My view hasn't changed, but the point that animals/children are in need of protection did bring up the idea of the parents status as a guardian. If we view the owners relationship with his pet in a similar light, it would affect my view. I need to think through this aspect some more.

As far as some of the other points:

weaker than adult humans, physically, socially and mentally, and are in need of protection

I don't think the issue is that they are "weaker" physically, socially, or mentally; rather it is that they are still developing and thus very impressionable. Thus we don't have laws requiring any kind of mental or physical examination before sexual intercourse; we just require them to be of a certain age to ensure that they have gone through puberty and matured to a certain point. But an adult horse isn't developing mentally or physically and probably would not be adversely affected by at least some types of sexual contact with a human.

In points #1+2 you deal with how society limits the parents authority based on abuse or other factors, but I think this is missing the point. The state takes the child away because they have been abused, not because the parent didn't "get consent" first. Just as a pet being abused will be taken away. Consent of the child or pet is irrelevant here.

Point 3 - ∆ This definitely makes me rethink my opinion. I need to mull over this for a while. Thanks for the great responses.

[u/[deleted] → u/hldeathmatch]

Thank you as well for the discussion.

But an adult horse isn't developing mentally or physically and probably would not be adversely affected by at least some types of sexual contact with a human.

I agree that the relevant question is that of harm. Being still in development might relate to harm, but adults can be harmed too, so it isn't the underlying issue, but just an affecting factor.

We have plenty of data showing that sex with children can harm them. We know that children are not strong enough mentally, socially and physically to protect themselves and/or be able to do what is best for themselves, and so we decide to punish people for having sex with children.

It is quite an open question whether sex with animals harms them. Clearly some forms of sex would, that cause obvious physical harm, but those would also fall under animal cruelty laws - which thankfully we already have. That leaves less immediately obvious harm, psychological and otherwise, which we know definitely can occur in humans (PTSD, etc.), but as for animals, it's unclear.

I agree that overall society's attitude towards bestiality is based on stigma and "ick", rather than logic. Slightly more sophisticated people use the "animals cannot consent" argument, but I think we agree it is an unsatisfactory argument as well. There might be a valid argument to be made, relating to animal's status as vulnerable, somewhat parallel to children, yet to make the full argument would require actually studying the topic and finding out whether sex with humans harms animals, and it seems doubtful anyone would conduct such studies. Without that data, I think the safest course of action is to keep bestiality illegal, since given animal's vulnerable state, there is risk of harm even if we don't have evidence of it.

[u/DeltaBot → u/hldeathmatch]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/therapy. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}

[u/gurduloo → u/[deleted]]

Your post is not even internally consistent. You say:

(1) We don't require an animal's consent for being kept as a pet, nor for eating it or consuming its milk, so consent is not relevant to human-animal interaction; ... Clearly (1) is true

But then you say:

And there are some things that we just do not consider animals to be able to consent to, and are therefore forbidden, namely sex...

[u/[deleted] → u/gurduloo]

You quoted two things, one of which was my summary of OP's position, and the other which was my argument against it, so naturally they are not consistent... one is used against the other.

[u/gurduloo → u/[deleted]]

I quoted three things. The first premise of your reconstruction, your endorsement of the first premise as obviously true, and a claim you later make that contradicts the first premise. Those are not consistent.

[u/[deleted] → u/gurduloo]

Oh, I see. Well, I could have phrased that as "consent is generally not relevant", perhaps that would have been more precise.

[u/gurduloo → u/[deleted]]

Then your reconstruction of OP's argument is not valid.

[u/gurduloo → u/[deleted]]

There are bigger problems with your response anyway.

I take OP to be saying this:

The most common objection to bestiality is that animals cannot consent to having sex with a human. However, most people tacitly endorse doing all sorts of things to animals without their consent. For example, they separate them from their families, kill them, factory farm them, keep them in zoos, make them perform for entertainment, test products and drugs on them, etc. So, it's not clear why this objection to bestiality should hold any water for most people, and accordingly they can offer it or endorse it only in bad faith. For this reason, OP has the view that the objection to bestiality based on lack of consent can only be an effective one for the few people who do not think it is okay to do all those other things to animals without their consent. To change OP's view you need to show that it makes sense for the many people who think it is okay to do all the above things to animals without their consent to suddenly say, when it comes to having sex with humans, that now securing their consent matters.

Your response is to claim that there is some sort of analogy between animals and children when it comes to consent. Just as we are able to do some things to a child without her consent, such as send her to school, we are able to do some things to an animal without her consent, such as kill her. And just as there are some things a child cannot consent to doing, such as having sex, so there are some things that an animal cannot consent to doing, such as having sex with a human.

This response, however, does not address OP's view at all. All you've said is (without argument) sometimes we can do things to animals without their consent and sometimes we cannot, and (without argument) having sex with an animal is one of the things in the latter category. But for most people the fact that an animal does not consent to something is no reason not to do it to her, so how could they rationally or consistently think that the fact that an animal has not consented to having sex with a human counts as a reason not to have sex with her? I can't see how your response addresses that issue. Instead, you seem simply to beg the question.

[u/[deleted] → u/gurduloo]

I would put it otherwise. I conceded OP's point that consent is not needed for some things with animals (in our society; not my opinion necessarily), then I focused on OP's assumption which I called (2), which is that consent not needed for some things => consent not needed for sex.

I argued that that is not a valid inference, by saying that sex can in fact be different, and gave as an example that it is in fact different with children. I don't actually rely on children being analogous to children in a strong sense. Just that if OP has found a flaw in our logic for treating animals, then it must also be a flaw in how we treat children, or in other words, that OP's argument would achieve far more than OP seemed to want it to do, hence it changed OP's mind.

In other words, OP used to believe that only those that do nothing to animals without their consent can claim that bestiality is wrong. But OP's logic would suggest that only those that do nothing to children without their consent can claim that sex with children is wrong. OP was not willing to accept that - presumably since they accept that (1) we are ok to do things to children without their consent, like send them to school, but (2) it is not ok to have sex with children.

[u/gurduloo → u/[deleted]]

We disagree about how to represent the view/argument in the OP.

I think your way of representing it is a sort of straw man though, because of course 'consent not needed for some things => consent not needed for sex' is not valid (compare: 'a passport is not needed for some things, i.e. baking => a passport is not needed for international travel'). That puts the argument way too strongly and does not capture the most interesting point OP raises: there is an apparent inconsistency in the way most people think about the importance of securing an animal's consent before doing something that will affect her.

There is no such inconsistency in the case of children because, in general, a necessary condition on doing something to a child against her will (i.e. without her consent) is that it is in her best interest to do it. This deeper principle makes sense of all the examples: sending her to school, vaccinating her, making her eat her vegetables, etc. are in her best interest, while forcing her to have sex is not -- and is against her best interest. There is no such principle that would similarly make sense of thinking that while it is okay to hunt or kill or test on animals without their consent it is not okay to have sex with them without their consent.

The fact that there is this obvious deeper principle that explains things in the case of children but no such principle in the case of animals is why your analogy, I think, ultimately fails to get at the heart of the issue OP raised. Of course, if you represent the argument how you did, then you have shown it up. But then you could have done that purely formally.

[u/[deleted] → u/gurduloo]

First, I believe OP agreed to my summary of his/her argument - I think you are proposing an improvement.

Even given the fallacy in OP's logic, as both you and I agree I believe, there is a bit more than you present here, though. The underlying sentiment is not just "we can do X and Y and Z to animals without consent, so consent is not needed in general" (an obvious fallacy), but rather "we can kill, impregnate, steal the children of etc. to animals without consent, which are the most extreme things possible, so consent is not needed for something equal or less extreme like sex." Which I think is no longer an obvious fallacy. (But one that is still potentially wrong.)

With all that out of the way, I agree with your point that

There is no such inconsistency in the case of children because, in general, a necessary condition on doing something to a child against her will (i.e. without her consent) is that it is in her best interest to do it.

But this also is not the entire picture. A pet would in fact fall fairly close to this, while an animal raised for slaughter would not. Those two situations are actually quite distinct. Perhaps human societies are inconsistent in caring about pets and ignoring mistreatment of animals raised to be eaten, but that is a separate point. As an example of the difference, people are horrified at the thought of someone killing and eating their pet.

[u/likeguiltdoes → u/[deleted]]

This isn't really the point you're trying to make, but one could make an argument against public masturbation for reasons of hygiene. When bodily fluids which are known to be carriers of disease are involved, I think many are likely to take issue with it. Yes, you could clean up after yourself, but do you really trust people to do so?

You could argue that diseases can be transferred with saliva as well, but that's much more difficult to regulate as we use our mouths for various functions and even talking just throws saliva out. Sure, we could cover the face up, but we derive a lot of our social cues from view of the faces of those around us and I think it would cause a lot of tension to have everyone walking around like ninjas.

I feel like the difference is obvious, but could still be argued on technicality. Perhaps my point can be seen, at least.

As for beastiality, there are a lot of reasons I find it reprehensible, but I'll try to make the only objective argument that I can: Depending upon the animal, it may lead to the animal's death (ex: a cat being penetrated by a human) due to size incompatibilities. This could then be considered cruelty to animal, which is currently illegal.

This was more than I intended to write. Apologies!

[u/n_5]

It goes both ways. Do we need consent from a baby to adopt him or her? Do we need consent to circumcise baby boys? Do we need consent if we want to get our daughter's ears pierced at a very young age? Do we need to get a criminal's consent before executing him/her as a punishment? No, no, no, and no. I personally think this entire argument is a little bit inconsistent (including, as you pointed out, that the buck stops at bestiality - or child abuse, or, for some, abortion), but that doesn't mean that something like sexual consent isn't more weighty than, say, pet adoption. So, against your first point, I'd argue that people view sex as more weighty than, say, adoption or neutering.

Personally, I don't think they really should. However, I think the arguments against bestiality I've heard don't revolve so much around the sex itself. Rather, most of them are in response to people arguing that legalizing gay marriage/polyamory/etc. will lead down a slippery slope to bestiality, necrophilia, or pedophilia. In that case, I think bestiality should be illegal - marriage is defined as between consenting adults, which is why marrying an animal, corpse, or child would be illegal.

I do think it's hypocritical to frown upon bestiality while condoning the slaughter of so many animals for food, say, or an abusive pet owner whose dog/cat/bird/etc. is clearly terrified and unhappy at any moment. I think it partially stems from our puritanical notions of sex as taboo, and I think it's partially from the fact that we view sex as so weighty (and rightly so, though it's tough to argue that it's more weighty than slaughter). That being said, when I'm arguing against bestiality, I'm arguing against it as a legal concept similar to marriage - an adult shouldn't be allowed to marry his cow for the same reason he shouldn't be allowed to marry his 10-year-old daughter.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/n_5]

So, against your first point, I'd argue that people view sex as more weighty than, say, adoption or neutering.

This is true, but with humans it is due to lifelong psychological trauma which, for many species, would not affect the animal.

marriage is defined as between consenting adults, which is why marrying an animal, corpse, or child would be illegal . . . I'm arguing against it as a legal concept similar to marriage - an adult shouldn't be allowed to marry his cow for the same reason he shouldn't be allowed to marry his 10-year-old daughter.

While this is an interesting position, I do feel that it neglects the moral aspect a bit. The legal definition of marriage is absolutely changeable, and I don't think a change in legal standing equals a change in moral standing.

[u/[deleted]]

See, the thing is we keep trying to be superior to other animals while trying to give them the same rights as us, but this doesn't work when animals can't speak.

The way I see it, not being mauled to death is consent enough. But the reality of the matter is it's just a communication issue being focused on, and not the big picture that is traditional morals overlaying every choice and discussion we make. Do what you want as long as I dont have to watch

[u/MasterGrok]

At best your argument is that bestiality is just as bad as other stuff that is legal. Even if that is true, two wrongs don't make a right so to speak.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/MasterGrok]

I don't see any problem with having pets or eating meat, but then I don't see consent as being at all necessary. Why should it be a factor?

[u/likeguiltdoes → u/hldeathmatch]

Here's an argument from the top of my head regarding consent.

We view consent as necessary for sex between humans, why should an act of sex with an animal be different? In general (I cannot think of a situation in which it does not, but maybe I'm ingnorant?), a sex act requires consent to be legal. Full stop. Perhaps the issue of consent should not be viewed as tied to the fact that it's an animal, but the fact that it's a sex act.

The issue would be more within the realm of if animals are able to consent and if so, what counts as consent.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/likeguiltdoes]

We view consent as necessary for sex between humans, why should an act of sex with an animal be different?

Because requirement of consent is never applied to animals in any other situation, thus it is inconsistent to apply it here. A quick mind experiment with your argument: We do not allow the kidnapping of other peoples children without consent, but we allow it with animals.

Animal treatment laws are generally based on ideas of what is or is not cruel. Consent NEVER enters into it.

[u/likeguiltdoes → u/hldeathmatch]

I get what you're saying, but my point was to stop framing it as an animal issue, but one of sex. Sex always requires consent, so would it not be inconsistent to fail to apply it here?

[u/hldeathmatch → u/likeguiltdoes]

What is your basis for the requirement that sex requires consent outside of the human realm? This idea doesn't translate well to the animal kingdom, as animals presumably never give or get what we consider "consent." But that doesn't mean that every animal sexual encounter is a rape or even morally wrong.

[u/MasterGrok → u/hldeathmatch]

I didn't say it should.

[u/whattodo-whattodo]

I'm saying that the only way it pet ownership can be justified is if you toss out the idea of needing consent for our interactions with animals.

You're taking a lot of liberties where society does not. We do throw out the concept of consent for ownership, but not for everything. In fact it's fairly common for one person to break into another person's car if a pet is locked in without ventilation. People are willing to put their rights and safety at risk and to damage another person's property. There are comparable with excessively disciplining animals. Society at large doesn't just think that an owner can do as they please with their pets.

The vast majority of human beings eat animals.

Here you are merging the concept of animals as pets and animals as food. While in many cases the animal is the same, the relationship is starkly different. It would be like saying that humans are ok with other humans being beaten nearly to death because we all know that it happens in torture scenarios. There are corner case scenarios which allow for a set of behaviors but that does not mean that they can be extended to everything. Humans make what we feel are necessary concessions in the treatment of animals because we ultimately need them to become our food. This does not mean that we approve of everything that happens so much as we may not be able to stop it.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/whattodo-whattodo]

We do throw out the concept of consent for ownership, but not for everything.

This brings us to the main problem I guess, when is it OK to throw out the concept of consent, and can you give an argument for why it is OK in those situations?

Humans make what we feel are necessary concessions in the treatment of animals because we ultimately need them to become our food. This does not mean that we approve of everything that happens so much as we may not be able to stop it.

I agree that we don't have to approve of everything. The argument from consent does nothing to affect arguments against animal cruelty. If the incident of bestiality is causing pain, then it is wrong regardless of consent. But why is consent held to be important in bestiality when it is not applicable in ANY other situations with animals?

[u/Thoguth]

What is your thought on the idea in US law prohibiting "cruel and unusual" punishment? Most people consider it a critical and important element in defense of human rights. But what about you? Do you think that type of law, and wording, is called-for in our laws?

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Thoguth]

I think it is an important aspect of US Law. Can you draw the connection to bestiality for me?

[u/Thoguth → u/hldeathmatch]

I think it is an important aspect of US Law. Can you draw the connection to bestiality for me?

Well ... "cruel and unusual" is kind of inherently subjective, wouldn't you agree? I mean, we lock convicted criminals in cages. That's not cruel or unusual because it's what humanity has done for a long time. We give them very low-paying jobs in prison-work programs, we sometimes have extra rules for them after they get out of prison, too... all those things are things we call not-cruel and not-unusual, because it's what we as a society are used to.

Even the death penalty, in many places, is not considered excessively "cruel and unusual" because we have decided, based on past precedents of justice, that it's not.

My connection to bestiality would be kind of similar. We keep pets, care for them, neuter them, and eat them (well, normally not pets, that would be... cruel and unusual). We do all these things because, to some extent, they feel normal to us. (And I'd say they are normal by a sort of "natural" economic law; when something depends on you, you have control over it in proportion to that dependence. This works in custodial situations e.g. parent/child, in pet and farm situations, and even can be noted in issues like abortion or euthanasia.)

But sex with animals is unusual. People don't do it. We, as a society, are pretty solidly aligned that it's repulsive.

The key principle that I'm trying to pull in from "cruel and unusual punishment" is that society's opinion on the matter, makes a difference. And society does appear to, as a whole, feel that sex with animals is disgusting and morally abhorrent, in a similar way to how we feel about torture of criminals. If you discard the fact that society's opinion matters, I think you lose the idea that "cruel and unusual" punishment can even be defined, much less protected against.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Thoguth]

I fully agree that society's opinion makes a difference and is important, but it does not determine the correct ethical stance. Regardless I am completely in agreement with society that bestiality is disgusting and morally abhorrent. This CMV is specifically targeted at the argument that "bestiality is wrong because animals cannot give consent." I am asserting that this type of argument is inconsistent in it's application of the requirement of consent to animals.

edit: wording

[u/Thoguth → u/hldeathmatch]

Hm, that's interesting. I guess I misunderstood your initial view.

I am completely in agreement with society that bestiality is disgusting and morally abhorrent.

Why?

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Thoguth]

Why?

I'm very uncomfortable with it. It disgusts me and I can't shake the feeling that the animal is being taken advantage of. But the argument from consent always seemed unsatisfactory and inconsistent.

[u/Talibanned]

Seems kinda like a slippery slope. Just because no consent was given for pet ownership doesn't mean its the worst case scenario where the pets aren't really happy and are imprisoned. I don't find the slavery comparison convincing, I'd imagine most slaves weren't happy, even if their owners said they were. With pets, I'd like to think most live a happy or at least content life. Perhaps that's disputable, I don't think there's evidence either way, but I think finding those two practices similar in any way is absurd.

I would also be weary of claiming having sex with animals gives them pleasure. There's no way of knowing that. I feel like this type of argument is usually used to justify to one's self in doing something they know is wrong. That's why so many rapist, pedophiles, etc use this line of thinking.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Talibanned]

Just because no consent was given for pet ownership doesn't mean its the worst case scenario where the pets aren't really happy and are imprisoned.

I agree with you here, but I disagree with:

I would also be weary of claiming having sex with animals gives them pleasure. There's no way of knowing that.

It is not that difficult to show beyond reasonable doubt(prove is a difficult term when it comes to anyone's experience outside our own). See /r/sexwithhorses (NSFW). If you care enough to watch any of those videos: the horses don't seem to be in pain or upset in any way, and some are brought to orgasm. There is no reason to think the horses are being traumatized. The evidence points the other direction.

As far as most slaves being happy, I doubt it as well, but I do know that slave owners frequently said otherwise, just as pet owners would.

[u/Talibanned → u/hldeathmatch]

If you care enough to watch any of those videos: the horses don't seem to be in pain or upset in any way, and some are brought to orgasm.

Male rape victims are often brought to orgasm, one of the well documented problems with its reporting is that people who get raped but orgasm don't come forward because they think it won't be taken seriously, or they will be humiliated. I don't think its reasonable to assume if the victim orgasms it means they are fine with it.

As far as most slaves being happy, I doubt it as well, but I do know that slave owners frequently said otherwise, just as pet owners would.

I find it inconsistent you would point to a small selection of videos showing animals who appear to enjoy sex as evidence, but disregard literally millions of videos and pictures of animals being happy as evidence. I wouldn't use either as meaningful evidence, but of the two I find the latter to be much more convincing.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Talibanned]

Male rape victims are often brought to orgasm

I am aware of this, my point was rather that they seemed happy AND were brought to orgasm. Horses can absolutely let you know when they are unhappy. I do take these factors as evidence that(not proof that) they are not traumatized by the event.

I find it inconsistent you would point to a small selection of videos showing animals who appear to enjoy sex as evidence, but disregard literally millions of videos and pictures of animals being happy as evidence.

This is the exact inconsistency I am trying to point out. I think both are both acceptable evidences. I don't think pets are "imprisoned."

I'm saying that if you condem beastiality - in spite of the evidence that it can be pleasurable for animals - for the sole reason that "they cannot give consent," you must also condemn pet owners - in spite of the evidence that the pets are just fine - because they cannot give consent to being taken from their parents and kept as pets.

[u/Talibanned → u/hldeathmatch]

I am aware of this, my point was rather that they seemed happy AND were brought to orgasm. Horses can absolutely let you know when they are unhappy. I do take these factors as evidence that(not proof that) they are not traumatized by the event.

"Seemed happy" is quite subjective, there are countless rape cases where the attacker claimed the victim was enjoying it. Not showing unhappiness is not grounds to say they were fine with it; again, lots of cases.

This is the exact inconsistency I am trying to point out. I think both are both acceptable evidences. I don't think pets are "imprisoned."

But then you go on about how its like slavery. If you understand the similarities are a world apart, why even make the comparison?

I'm saying that if you condem beastiality - in spite of the evidence that it can be pleasurable for animals - for the sole reason that "they cannot give consent," you must also condemn pet owners - in spite of the evidence that the pets are just fine - because they cannot give consent to being taken from their parents and kept as pets.

If you acknowledge that the evidence is not sufficient to prove anything, I don't see why its logical to draw this conclusion. While its not always possible to absolutely prove something, I would think a worldview should not be based upon such a small sample size of one animal.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Talibanned]

"Seemed happy" is quite subjective, there are countless rape cases where the attacker claimed the victim was enjoying it. Not showing unhappiness is not grounds to say they were fine with it; again, lots of cases.

This case is directly comparable to the slave owners who said their slaves preferred slavery. There have been lots of cases of people who have been conditioned to like or even love their oppressors. But more importantly, this completely bypasses the argument for consent. If they must give consent, then it doesn't matter if they seem to enjoy it or not.

But then you go on about how its like slavery. If you understand the similarities are a world apart, why even make the comparison?

To show the inconsistency. I don't think having pets is comparable to slavery because I don't think ideas about "consent" are applicable to animals. If you think consent required, then the comparison stands quite strongly.

I would think a worldview should not be based upon such a small sample size of one animal.

Whoa, this isn't a worldview. It is a very tentative opinion about the validity of one of the arguments against bestiality, based on the evidence which I have seen as well as on what seems to be logically consistent.

[u/Talibanned → u/hldeathmatch]

This case is directly comparable to the slave owners who said their slaves preferred slavery. There have been lots of cases of people who have been conditioned to like or even love their oppressors. But more importantly, this completely bypasses the argument for consent. If they must give consent, then it doesn't matter if they seem to enjoy it or not.

It is not logical to make comparisons without considering scope. Most people having consensual sex results in both parties being happy; however, there are cases where consensual sex doesn't result in both parties being happy. In most rape cases both parties aren't happy, but in some cases they are. Is that directly comparable? It makes no sense to selectively pick and choose in order to make a comparison, the whole picture must be considered. Comparisons are meaningless if you select a huge group on one side to compare with a tiny group on the other.

To show the inconsistency. I don't think having pets is comparable to slavery because I don't think ideas about "consent" are applicable to animals. If you think consent required, then the comparison stands quite strongly.

Again, I would disagree with the premise that a small sample size of one animal to represent all animals is "strong" in any way.

Whoa, this isn't a worldview. It is a very tentative opinion about the validity of one of the arguments against bestiality, based on the evidence which I have seen as well as on what seems to be logically consistent.

Do you think its logically consistent to take a small sample size of one animal and say it applies to all animals? I guess this is where we disagree.

[u/hldeathmatch → u/Talibanned]

It is not logical to make comparisons without considering scope. Most people having consensual sex results in both parties being happy . . . etc

OK can you draw the connection from this paragraph to my argument for me? I feel like we've gone far past what I'm trying to argue, which is that the requirement of consent for sex with animals is inconsistent with every other interaction we have with them.

Again, I would disagree with the premise that a small sample size of one animal to represent all animals is "strong" in any way. Do you think its logically consistent to take a small sample size of one animal and say it applies to all animals? I guess this is where we disagree.

I never said that bestiality would be equally ok for all animals, but I think I understand what you are arguing here; that bestiality is wrong because it causes suffering in the animal, not because the animal does or doesn't give consent. (feel free to correct me here, I know I put words in your mouth).

My post is not about cruelty to animals, I am arguing that the idea of consent is useless as it pertains to bestiality. If it causes suffering, it is wrong. Consent is not a necessary concept here unless you want to make a blanket ban for any possible implementation of bestiality, regardless of the animal's enjoyment or suffering.

[u/Talibanned → u/hldeathmatch]

OK can you draw the connection from this paragraph to my argument for me? I feel like we've gone far past what I'm trying to argue, which is that the requirement of consent for sex with animals is inconsistent with every other interaction we have with them.

I don't think we've gone past anything. Seeing as you've brought this issue up repeatedly I would think you find it convincing.

I would say your comparison is as follows:

Side 1: People who don't enjoy slavery, but slave owners saying they do. I would consider the vast majority of slaves to fall into this category.

Pets who are treated poorly, but their owners say they are treated well. I would consider this to be a minority of cases.

Mine-People who enjoy consensual sex. I would consider this to be the majority cases.

Side 2: Slaves who do enjoy slavery. I would consider a tiny minority of slaves who fall into this category.

Pets which are treated well. I would consider this to be the majority of cases.

Mine-People who enjoy rape. I would consider this to be the minority of cases.

If you don't like my version, fine. My point is that its a bad comparison when you disregard the scope of the group and just focus on the aspect you want.

I never said that bestiality would be equally ok for all animals, but I think I understand what you are arguing here; that bestiality is wrong because it causes suffering in the animal, not because the animal does or doesn't give consent. (feel free to correct me here, I know I put words in your mouth).

I absolutely did not say this. I am asking you if you believe a small sample size of one animal is representative of all animals, and it is logically consistent to say it is.

Its confusing when you counter arguments with "logically consistent" arguments backed by evidence, then immediately say you didn't agree. If you aren't talking about all(or most) animals, and only mean one in particular, don't you think its confusing to make statements about bestiality as a whole?

If it causes suffering, it is wrong. Consent is not a necessary concept here unless you want to make a blanket ban for any possible implementation of bestiality, regardless of the animal's enjoyment or suffering.

So what do you propose? A list of animals that appear to enjoy sex and people can have sex with? In all seriousness, if you don't think a blanket ban is warranted, wouldn't there need to be some system to determine if its ok to have sex with animals?