3 ms·

> rape racks Is consent possible within the scope of bestiality?

erikpukinskis 11y ago
Yes, nonverbal consent is definitely possible, although it is considered a weaker standard than verbal consent, which is why humans often advocate for that. There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech", and locking a creature to a rack where they are alone and powerless to dissuade penetration.
- r_rack_advocate 11y ago
  She was asking for it, all dressed up in leather like that.
- adrusi 11y ago
  I don't know how you can apply human attitudes toward sex and consent to other animals so biologically distinct. I'm not going to argue that cows are naturally "consent" to sex at any time in any form, but there's an argument (see below) to be made that supports that extreme more strongly than the idea that human sexuality is applicable to cows. I'm not entirely sure how to research this, but it needs actual research before any meaningful statements can be made. Cattle is low on the food chain, while humans are at the top. It makes sense for animals at the top of the food chain to be more selective with regard to sex because it's important for their offspring to be highly fit. Lower on the food chain, having the most fit offspring isn't as important, unless they can reliably be fit enough to always evade predators. Since illness and injury can always happen, it's more important to have many offspring than it is to have especially fit ones. Ergo more sex, and less selectivity with regard to partners. Anyway, I'm not a biologist, and I haven't heard of any research on this topic. For all I know, what I just said is complete bullshit, but it seems to me to hold more water than blindly applying human morality to non-human animals.
  - Asbostos 11y ago
    You're describing K-strategists vs R-strategists, which I don't think has quite that relationship to position on the food chain, but there still are species that do more of one that the other. Your point does make sense to me that those concerned more with quantity would be less emotionally harmed by unwanted sex. Not a biologist either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
- hueving 11y ago
  >Yes, nonverbal consent is definitely possible If a cow doesn't struggle in a 'rape rack', how is that not consent then? >There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech" If that argument were valid, anyone that didn't resist during a gang rape because of fear of repercussion would be 'consenting'. Also, there are plenty of species where sex is straight up violent. Projecting human sexual standards onto other animals is idiotic at best.

Yes, nonverbal consent is definitely possible, although it is considered a weaker standard than verbal consent, which is why humans often advocate for that. There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech", and locking a creature to a rack where they are alone and powerless to dissuade penetration.

r_rack_advocate 11y ago
She was asking for it, all dressed up in leather like that.
adrusi 11y ago
I don't know how you can apply human attitudes toward sex and consent to other animals so biologically distinct. I'm not going to argue that cows are naturally "consent" to sex at any time in any form, but there's an argument (see below) to be made that supports that extreme more strongly than the idea that human sexuality is applicable to cows. I'm not entirely sure how to research this, but it needs actual research before any meaningful statements can be made. Cattle is low on the food chain, while humans are at the top. It makes sense for animals at the top of the food chain to be more selective with regard to sex because it's important for their offspring to be highly fit. Lower on the food chain, having the most fit offspring isn't as important, unless they can reliably be fit enough to always evade predators. Since illness and injury can always happen, it's more important to have many offspring than it is to have especially fit ones. Ergo more sex, and less selectivity with regard to partners. Anyway, I'm not a biologist, and I haven't heard of any research on this topic. For all I know, what I just said is complete bullshit, but it seems to me to hold more water than blindly applying human morality to non-human animals.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  You're describing K-strategists vs R-strategists, which I don't think has quite that relationship to position on the food chain, but there still are species that do more of one that the other. Your point does make sense to me that those concerned more with quantity would be less emotionally harmed by unwanted sex. Not a biologist either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
hueving 11y ago
>Yes, nonverbal consent is definitely possible If a cow doesn't struggle in a 'rape rack', how is that not consent then? >There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech" If that argument were valid, anyone that didn't resist during a gang rape because of fear of repercussion would be 'consenting'. Also, there are plenty of species where sex is straight up violent. Projecting human sexual standards onto other animals is idiotic at best.