Horrors on LJ

[emmelinemay]

My world was a better, happier, shinier place before i discovered the existence of these people.

no pictures, but text content may not be work-safe. It's DEFINITELY not mind-safe.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

...but by your own arguement, concent isn't always relevant, either ("Children who are routinely abused will ask for it or engage in it, as that is what they come to understand as 'normal'). A child, of any species, should not be engaged in sexual acts because children do not WANT to (otherwise, it would be legal and a non-issue), this isn't about the indoctrination of children into promiscuity, which would be an entirely different matter.
I don't think animals are being expoited or hurt by engaging in sex with their owners. They will never experience shame or ostrasization from it, only pleasure. Pet dogs, for example, will often hump anything they can find, and it's not abusive in any way to designate a particular stuffed toy for the purposes of this masturbation.
sex of any kind is only wrong when one of the parties is being abused, injured, or faces any related repercussions from the act in their individual future. Having sex with a horse can be dangerous and injurious, but only to the human who knows full well that what they are doing is not a part of the natural design.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

Children are 'trained' to seek it, even want it. Rape victims have been known to feel pleasure from the sensation, it's one of the big taboos, and one of the reasons many rape victims have so many problems dealing with the act.

We have no way to know if the animal wants the act. Instinct =/= desire. We ASSUME, based on human communications. We cannot know there is consent, and where we cannot KNOW there is consent, there is abuse.

Under the age of 16, in the eyes of the law, children CANNOT consent, so my comparision is valid.

Having sex with an animal, or training an animal that having sex with humans is ok, is abuse of our position of power over them. Animals do not know what the act means to us. Ergo, they cannot consent to it.

Wanting something doesn't make it right, giving something to something that wants it doesn't make it right. Having sex with something/someone that CANNOT consent = wrong.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yungfuktoi_/]

That's a tremendous responsibilty to put on the shoulders of Darwins 'fittest'. You don't assume that animals court each-other, have nasty break-ups, or in any way/shape/form CONSENT to sexual acts amongst THEMSELVES. The animal kingdom, and it's mating rituals, consist largely -scratch that- almost totally of non-concensual sex. We could outlaw two turtles from having a go at each-other, or accept that human mating rituals are ludicrously complex when compared to other animals. What makes non-concensual sex in our human society so utterly repulsive is the trauma and emotional damage that is done to the victim as a result of this unforgivable, selfish act. The scars that a rape victim carries with them should never be undermined, but this reaction is a very psychological one reinforced by religion, upbringing and societal mores. However, these sexual protocols simply do not exist in the animal kingdom. An animal will not feel violated or repulsed by sex with a human, and will (seemingly) be happy to engage long as that act is pleasurable and is not injurious to them.
This is why your 'no consent=wrong' theory, although correct in human terms, cannot apply to less complicated beings who rely on nothing but non-concensual sex for their very existence on this planet. When you throw a human mate into the equation, one need only take into account the sensitivity that a human can demonstrate -or not- through human traits such as altruism, empathy and compassion, by not causing reckless harm to the animal the way a 'proper' mate of the same genus wouldn't give a damn.


You know...I almost can't believe I'm defending the case for beastiality. This will totally haunt me when I launch my political career ;)

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

I actually disagree with almost every thing you said up there, but respect the way you put it across. I can't argue any more eloquently than restate my position which is no explicit consent = no dice, as shira put it so well :)

We raised ourselves above the animal kingdom, given ourselves morals and ethics to love by, and we have a duty of care to those in our power and who depend on us for surviva. No explicit consent = rape, and that's enough for me!

I do see your point (and i saw his badly argued one in the original post) about ownership and use of animals. That would be why I'm vegan ;)

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

ourselves morals and ethics to love by

AWESOME typo!!! I meant live, but hey, it still works, given the context!!