Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?
Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.
I want to say pretty much all of the research I’ve presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don’t consent males literally cannot fuck them.
The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.
You’re restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn’t a good argument
I’m restricting it because we need an agreeable definition. I wouldn’t agree that you can give consent to sex without being informed. so the whole idea of animal consent is absurd. if we can’t agree on the definition of consent, there is no point in continuing
You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.
please cite an animal behavior paper that supports your claim
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
none of these are animal cognative behavioral studies showing non human animals can understand and consent to reproduction
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?
consent is informed. you haven’t shown animals can be informed and, therefore, give consent
Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.
I want to say pretty much all of the research I’ve presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don’t consent males literally cannot fuck them.
The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.
You’re restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn’t a good argument
I’m restricting it because we need an agreeable definition. I wouldn’t agree that you can give consent to sex without being informed. so the whole idea of animal consent is absurd. if we can’t agree on the definition of consent, there is no point in continuing
What do you mean by informed?
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.