• GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

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