Consent


There seem to be a lot of arguments on this board revolving around the issue of consent. Some say a horse (or any non-human animal) cannot consent to sex with a human being because it lacks the cognitive ability. Others argue that the fact that some animals initiate such sexual activity shows that they can offer meaningful consent.

I can see both sides to the argument, but I think this debate misses the point entirely. Animal consent is an irrelevant topic in the context of our current legal structures. Completely irrelevant. There is no other area where an animal's consent is a valid consideration. Under law, we can do whatever we like to them—lock them in a cage, make them pull carts, shackle them, brand them, castrate them, euthanise them or slaughter them for food; the one condition is that we don't cause them unnecessary, gratuitous harm. As far as the law is concerned, animal cruelty laws are as far as animal welfare concerns go.

Perhaps you're a radical vegan who thinks no animal coercion of any kind should be legal. That's fine, but our society does not come close to sharing your code of ethics. You might want to try ending factory farming first before worrying about the niceties of animal consent.

So, this whole issue of consent is a red herring. What people should be asking is the following: is bestiality a form of animal cruelty? Are there cases where it isn't? And if—in the case of the latter—there are, then should they really be considered unlawful or unethical?

Just quietly, I don't actually believe that the bulk of the disgust aimed at bestiality comes from genuine ethical concern for the wellbeing of animals. I think the issue of consent, when it arises in this context, is mostly just a post-hoc justification for an irrational opposition to 'perverse', 'unnatural' sexual behaviour—a category that once upon a time included homosexuality and miscegenation before racism and homophobia became unfashionable. That sort of bigotry may be understandable as an uneducated knee-jerk reaction, but it should not be allowed to dictate law.

None of this is to say that I condone bestiality. To be honest, I find it a strange practice, and wonder why anyone would want to participate in it. But, so long as no serious physical or psychological damage is being done to the animal, I do not think it should be illegal. It should not be in the state's interests to send people to jail for no good reason.

reply

Far and away the most intelligent and cogent post on this board ever.

(And my horse-friend concurs.)


It should be against the law to use "LOL" unless you really did LOL!

reply

And, as long as the animal belongs to the user.

Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam

reply

[deleted]

You're not familiar with this term? 'Non-human animal' is a means of differentiating between humans and other animals that acknowledges that humans are themselves animals.

reply

[deleted]

Animals are a kingdom, not a genus! And cannibalism only refers to eating your own species, as far as I'm aware – thus, dogs who eat dogs are cannibals but dogs who eat rabbits aren't.

reply

Animals can't consent. End of story. You can't do anything you want to an animal just because it might or might not have lasting psychological damaging effects.

reply

Who says? You are merely restating the legal/cultural status quo without actually offering a reason for why it should be that way.

There is so much perfectly legal harm done to people and animals in the world. To make something illegal, you should at the very least be able to show that it causes or is likely to cause harm. Otherwise you're just appealing to tradition for its own sake.

reply

The obvious flaw in your argument is that different animals differ dramatically in size. Horses are fairly big and strong, it would probably hurt them a lot less to be used by humans than it would hurt, say, a medium sized dog

Beyond that, animals differ in their ability to express pain in ways that we can easily perceive

reply