• Maxxus@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    6 hours ago

    I’m going to scroll through this whole comment section and not see a single Sexy Losers reference, aren’t I?

    Edit: bjoern’s restored my faith in shitposting.

  • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
    3·
    10 hours ago

    Aight, I know this comment is gonna bite me later, but I gotta speak my piece. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Beastiality, zoophilia, whatever you wanna call it… It isn’t always a case of raping the animal. What is consent? It is ultimately an extremely arbitrary idea that humans fling around. For human-on-human interactions, obviously society has cemented it as something with clear-cut lines and rules. But, that’s pretty much where it ends for us. Consent from animals is not something we ever seriously consider in any way.

    Think about it. Did domesticated species, which we have dominated for our benefit, consent? Do dogs consent to anything we put them through as our pets? Do cats? Birds? Bugs?! The answer is no. We cannot communicate with other animals. So we forgo consent when it comes to the animals we interact with. Even when it comes to things that really has no direct benefit to the animal.

    All I’m saying is, rape is rape, for sure. But when it comes to inter-species erotica, as a man once called it, it can’t all be rape. Because animals rely on instinct more than anything, especially when it comes to sex. I guarantee a horse will show you when it doesn’t appreciate it being touched in the no-no spot.

    Okey doke. Bring on the rain. 🙂‍↕️

    • LonelySea@reddthat.com
      1·
      1 hour ago

      So…

      Most of our domesticated species actively and wilfully participated in their own domestication in one way or another, because they realized that hanging around humans was good for their survival. Especially cats. They were basically unchanged and never selectively bred past “hey my good mouser had kittens, you want one neighbor?” up until about 200 years ago.

      Animals can absolutely tell you “fuck right off I do not want that right now,” but they can also be trained to tolerate a lot against their own wishes (i.e. veterinary procedures) Which… Don’t use that against them just for your pleasure. That’s sadistic. And gross.

      Add in that most female animals do not engage in sex for pleasure, barring a select few species that should not be kept as pets, and you have your answer. Don’t be gross. Keep your deviancy to yourself and your chosen, consenting, adult, human partners.

      • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
        1·
        1 hour ago

        Your best argument is it’s gross. That’s something I agree on. My argument is that not all beastiality is rape as defined by our understanding of consent with animals.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      3 hours ago

      If you can adequately prove to me that the animal understood and consented then what happens between you and the goat is your own business.
      It takes more than enthusiastic participation: it also requires the ability to appropriately conceptualize what’s being consented to. It’s why drugging someone and then using their enthusiasm as consent doesn’t fly, or why a 13 year old can’t consent to a relationship with someone much older than them.

      A goat understands goat sex well enough that we all generally agree they can consent if they’re obviously into it.
      A goat does not understand interspecies sex well enough to consent, regardless of their interest or arousal.

      At best your claim is that sometimes it’s closer to “statutorily raping” an animal, commonly known as “rape”.

      So put the horse back in the barn before you let the horse out of the barn.

      • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
        1·
        3 hours ago

        Consent does not matter. To say it matters in this instance is insanely hypocritical. Unless you have that stance on literally every other aspect of our dominating other species for both our and their own benefit.

        Statutory rape is a legal term for humans. It is not something that applies to other animals. Rape is rape. Since consent does not matter with animals, the best we can do is infer using context. Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person? Etc.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          53 minutes ago

          If, as you say, consent doesn’t matter for animals, then you can’t rape one at all and we can fall back to the more conventional “abuse”, “mistreatment” or “animal cruelty”.

          Your “contextual inference” seems to be the inference of consent, so I’m confused by what you mean. If consent doesn’t matter then clearly it doesn’t matter if the goat is tied to a pole.

          I’m not seeing the hypocrisy. If you kill a goat, you’re a goat killer. If you buy a puppy, you’re a puppy buyer. If you fuck a goat you’re a goat fucker, and unless you passed the impossibly high bar of proving consent, you’re a non-consensual goat fucker, commonly called a “goat rapist”.

          • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
            1·
            44 minutes ago

            You know what, this has actually given me something to think about. I’ll concede. Thank you for challenging my view on this.

    • musicjunkie@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 hours ago

      Idk how porn brained you have to be to conflate owning/training a pet with raping animals and whether this a shitpost or you actually think you cooked but approximately 0% of your comment holds any actual logical meaning

    • absentbird@lemmy.world
      3·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t think anyone is arguing that animals have no understanding of consent, I think the issue is that there’s a communication barrier in dealing with humans (I.e. they can’t say ‘yes’)

      Zoologists have a pretty robust understanding of rape and consent within the animal kingdom, but it’s always through observing interactions between animals.

      • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
        2·
        4 hours ago

        The point is consent is something that doesn’t matter to the conversation of people who do the deed with animals. I think a much more productive line of questioning would be: Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person?

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      7·
      6 hours ago

      I don’t really care about the hill you’ve chosen to die on, but I will sit here and watch what happens.

  • HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub
    2·
    13 hours ago

    Okay, I’m gonna bite this bait - isn’t consent something decided later? Nobody can prove they said “yes or no” later after all so usually it’s based on who we decide to trust.

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      5·
      6 hours ago

      Consent can absolutely be decided immediately. But as the situation changes, consent can too. You might’ve been ok with safe sex, and said only “yes” assuming that was the situation. Only to then find out there never was a condom and now you have a greatly increased risk of pregnancy or disease. That consent is now revoked, and retroactively. That isn’t a case of “lol too bad you said yes.”

      • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.todayEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        What about after everyone agrees, the person looks back, and regrets it for some reason.

        Can they prosecute for rape, even if you followed all the rules of consent?

        Also, one of the reasons I was thinking to just have the other person just tie me to a bed or something and use me, they can do what they want and unless they do something pretty stupid, revoke my own consent. And they literaly can’t be raped if they have to do everything themselves.

        No wondering if this person changed their mind or are faking it or something, because they can always just get off, ensuring consent is now just the other person’s problem.

      • HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub
        3·
        6 hours ago

        No, I’m asking about changing consent retroactively.

        Say I consent today, we have fun… and in a few days I get informed that I could earn some money by claiming I did not consent.

        • absentbird@lemmy.world
          6·
          5 hours ago

          That isn’t a consent issue, it’s a false accusation. It’s common for all sorts of crimes to be used for manipulation; either to deflect blame or to cause damage to someone’s reputation. Even if the language of consent is used, it’s not really about consent; in a different cultural paradigm the same false accusation would be made with different words

          • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.todayEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            Was a thing some years ago thay stirred up drama in the right-wing circles where someone claimed they wanted to bring in laws where you can be satisfied, have good mutual sex, and some time after, decide you feel icky over it, and withdraw consent retroactively.

            Prob just someone trying to scare people out of sex.

    • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      8·
      13 hours ago

      So you’re saying that when you have sex with someone, you don’t know if you’re raping them, but you will find out later and that’s normal?

      Have you ever had sex? And if so, for how many have you been convicted?

      • HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub
        1·
        10 hours ago

        I am saying, that a person can consent now, and then claim no consent and sue you later. Which I hope never happens to you, but the idea is quite an useful loophole.

        • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          3·
          9 hours ago

          That’s a poor choice in partners if it’s someone who’s trying to fuck you over. And like the list shows, many “yes” are actually a no. Ive never had issues with any partner I had, as I’m respectful and clearly show them a “no” is an answer that’s completely fine. Also, I prefer both not to be drunk or under the influence of whatever when it’s the first time because it doesn’t feel real and I’m not sure if my partner is still happy with their decision the day after (or me). Even one night stands go with proper communication beforehand and sober (or after only ~2 beers).

          So consent should always be defined beforehand, without doubt.

          I’ve also cockblocked many because I was in doubt people would be happy with their decision the day after. “Nope, not going to happen, I will bring you home now. If you still want this tomorrow, you should plan a date together and see where it goes. But tonight, it’s going to be a hard no. Off to bed now.”

          In all cases they thanked me the day after, whether they still wanted it or not. Better safe than sorry.

          By being extra careful and respectful I may have missed out on many opportunities, but at least there’s no one who had regrets or fell forced or anything like that in the moment or the day after.

    • Leomas@lemmy.world
      4·
      13 hours ago

      No, if a person doesn’t want to do something and the other person does something anyway, that breaks consent that second.

      • HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub
        1·
        10 hours ago

        Yes, but what if a person decides that while they may have consented originally during the act, they benefit more from saying they have not consented later on? I’m asking about this being quite possibly a profitable endeavor.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    15·
    21 hours ago

    I might get hate for this, but you can still consent when you’re drunk, so long as you’re not like barely conscious drunk or you’re not being manipulated coerced by someone.

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      20 hours ago

      Yeah, as an alcoholic, I don’t think every sexual encounter I’ve had in the past decade or more was mutual rape.

      • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.todayEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        If both are drunk, neither can rape and it is kind of seen like animals fucking naturaly. You both wake up as non-animals and are horrified by the ugly person on the other side that you fucked.