UKdog
Tourist
I posted this on zoocomunity, but i thought I'd post it here too and hopefully more responses:
Informed consent and power dynamic as it relates to bestiality with reference to a moral framework.
I want to add view/opinion on informed consent and also play devils advocate in regards to bestiality (act of sex with animals).
I was listening to a debate (By the Youtuber Destiny) on incest and it overlapped with bestiality;
Incest moral argument
The point was once you move past the intuitive response aka the gut feeling that most ppl would have that something like incest is morally wrong. You realise that there as few moral and ethical argument against incest within the parameter that follow, If the 2 family member are both consenting adults who engage in non-reproductive sexual activates (any activity not resulting in conception e.g. use of contraceptives or non-penetrative sex) then what reason is there against incest. The point being incest is morally and ethically neutral if its acted upon under these condition.
Though a valid counter argument that i want to revisit in regards to bestiality, is power dynamics (aka if a boss or landlord proposition you for a sexual activity, though there may be legitimate attraction and consent from the worker/tenet you could never truly know if this were the case as the power dynamic dictated that you do not know the repercussions if you refuse and so can be coerced into sexual activities).
So in the case of insect if it were between parent and child even if the child were a consenting adult, or between older and younger siblings you can argue there is a power dynamic that can be abuse. A counter point to this is what if incest occurs between siblings of the same age and both consenting adults, the the only good augment again this counter point is that normalisation of this though morally neutral incest could encourage incest between individuals where a power dynamic could be abused.
Bestiality moral argument
Informed consent is all that is necessary for two animals (including humans ofc) to engage in sexual activities.
Ok, as far as bestiality and informed consent, I'd like to brake this into 2 parts; starting with consent:
I think it fare to say that animal including human can consent through non-verbal communication whether for or against sexual interaction, e.g. for a human analogue take an indigenous member of a tribe who have never had any contact with the outside world. If you meet them you would not share a language, culture, day to day life-style, religion etc and there would also be distinct physical differences (e.g. skin colour). Yet i'm sure you would all agree that if you attempted to proposition sexual interaction they would be able to understand your intention and clearly through body language and basic sound of affirmation or displeasure, display whether they wanted to engage or not.
I think this relates directly to our animal counterparts, e.g. with a dog if they are not happy with what you are proposing they will make it clear through body posture, eye contact how how they hold their head, if there willing/happy to come over to you when they smell sexual oder or see sexual prompts, to name a few, and again basic noises or affirmation or displeasure where they are interested, You don't need to be a dog whisper to pick up on these they're clear and obvious.
Though I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here i think this is a good anecdote for non-human consent.
-
Now to focus on the informed part of informed consent, as mention in another thread (Consent flow chart) in comes down to the understanding of associated risks, so if the following parameters are meet the the consent should be considered informed:
To begin with there must be an understanding of what sex and sexuality is, which all animals including humans reached with adulthood and sexual maturity, if the animal has reached these then it can be said they have an understanding of sex and sexuality(as far as attraction), further that both partner have been checked for any zoonotic diseases (though rare this must be accounted for), that there are no mechanical/physical incompatibilities (aka large enough dog that penetrative sex is not distressful or harmful), that the activity takes place in a safe environment (not dangerous during or lead to negative repercussions later on aka sex in public place) and finally that clear consent is shown.
-Also in the absence of coercion via a discipline system. (I was tempted to include reward incentive too, but if an animal make the choice to exchange service for food what is the moral argument against (aka prostitutes are morally neutral and it it hard to argue why exchanging sexual favour for money in a safe environment is detrimental/immoral, and or isn't directly an expression of consent). If you put peanut butter on your genitals then your dog is gaining food and human affirmation and the human is gaining sexual gratification what is wrong with this?
If these are meet, i believe all risks are mitigated and so consent in these parameters in informed.
Devil's Advocate - Moral argument against bestiality (Please counter this point)
This is an argument that I'm really struggling to morally and ethically argue against so I'd love to hear and counter points to this.
Power dynamic - This was the major counter point against incest (and though i dislike to draw comparisons to it, the second major point again paedophilia, the first ofc being informed consent) and i believe it strongly applies to bestiality, and that is simply it's impossible to get over the owner-pet power dynamic, (example here is for dogs) you control ever aspect of there life from what and when they eat to when and where they defecate to only state a few, this mean that using this argument (see PD augment explained at top) its hard to truly say if a response to a requests from the owner by a pet is ever fully or totally autonomous decision and not predicated on this relationship and the possible repercussions.
Even in an extreme case lets say the dog has full control over freedom of movement and isn't curtailed in anyway by the human, and is feed by an automated system to remove association with humans (or hunts/scavenges), and was generally able to wonder freely, then that dog would still known that human were above dogs that if a dog snapped at him he could snap back but if a human did the same then this reaction wash not acceptable due to societal and cultural norms, which would be incredibly hard to not learn if they had live around human for any amount of time.
This power dynamic remains and i don't see how it can be over come, (even if you are not a dogs owner and they were brought up wild, humans have a clear domain over animals as far as genetic predisposition to temperament relating to humans) to the point were pray had to develop a genetic fear of human and you take dogs, maybe one of the more genetically divers from their original phenotype seen as wolfs, there must be genetic factor for submission to human will, and they would have been selected for by early human. Even truly wild animals e.g. a wolfs would have genetic knowledge in regards to humans, that at a minimum they were dangerous and higher in the food chain.
Conclusion:
I know this is a long read and congratulation if you made it to the end, I've thought a far bit about informed consent (and it somewhat silly to think animals cannot at least in the moment and during sexual activity and make decisions whether they are comfortable or not with the situation), but i can't overcome the argument for the power dynamic and how it relate to consent and its impactions involving bestiality.
I look forwards to responses.
(P.s. please forgive any grammatical or spelling errors, further forgive any mistakes in my moral/ethical chain of reasoning)
Informed consent and power dynamic as it relates to bestiality with reference to a moral framework.
I want to add view/opinion on informed consent and also play devils advocate in regards to bestiality (act of sex with animals).
I was listening to a debate (By the Youtuber Destiny) on incest and it overlapped with bestiality;
Incest moral argument
The point was once you move past the intuitive response aka the gut feeling that most ppl would have that something like incest is morally wrong. You realise that there as few moral and ethical argument against incest within the parameter that follow, If the 2 family member are both consenting adults who engage in non-reproductive sexual activates (any activity not resulting in conception e.g. use of contraceptives or non-penetrative sex) then what reason is there against incest. The point being incest is morally and ethically neutral if its acted upon under these condition.
Though a valid counter argument that i want to revisit in regards to bestiality, is power dynamics (aka if a boss or landlord proposition you for a sexual activity, though there may be legitimate attraction and consent from the worker/tenet you could never truly know if this were the case as the power dynamic dictated that you do not know the repercussions if you refuse and so can be coerced into sexual activities).
So in the case of insect if it were between parent and child even if the child were a consenting adult, or between older and younger siblings you can argue there is a power dynamic that can be abuse. A counter point to this is what if incest occurs between siblings of the same age and both consenting adults, the the only good augment again this counter point is that normalisation of this though morally neutral incest could encourage incest between individuals where a power dynamic could be abused.
Bestiality moral argument
Informed consent is all that is necessary for two animals (including humans ofc) to engage in sexual activities.
Ok, as far as bestiality and informed consent, I'd like to brake this into 2 parts; starting with consent:
I think it fare to say that animal including human can consent through non-verbal communication whether for or against sexual interaction, e.g. for a human analogue take an indigenous member of a tribe who have never had any contact with the outside world. If you meet them you would not share a language, culture, day to day life-style, religion etc and there would also be distinct physical differences (e.g. skin colour). Yet i'm sure you would all agree that if you attempted to proposition sexual interaction they would be able to understand your intention and clearly through body language and basic sound of affirmation or displeasure, display whether they wanted to engage or not.
I think this relates directly to our animal counterparts, e.g. with a dog if they are not happy with what you are proposing they will make it clear through body posture, eye contact how how they hold their head, if there willing/happy to come over to you when they smell sexual oder or see sexual prompts, to name a few, and again basic noises or affirmation or displeasure where they are interested, You don't need to be a dog whisper to pick up on these they're clear and obvious.
Though I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here i think this is a good anecdote for non-human consent.
-
Now to focus on the informed part of informed consent, as mention in another thread (Consent flow chart) in comes down to the understanding of associated risks, so if the following parameters are meet the the consent should be considered informed:
To begin with there must be an understanding of what sex and sexuality is, which all animals including humans reached with adulthood and sexual maturity, if the animal has reached these then it can be said they have an understanding of sex and sexuality(as far as attraction), further that both partner have been checked for any zoonotic diseases (though rare this must be accounted for), that there are no mechanical/physical incompatibilities (aka large enough dog that penetrative sex is not distressful or harmful), that the activity takes place in a safe environment (not dangerous during or lead to negative repercussions later on aka sex in public place) and finally that clear consent is shown.
-Also in the absence of coercion via a discipline system. (I was tempted to include reward incentive too, but if an animal make the choice to exchange service for food what is the moral argument against (aka prostitutes are morally neutral and it it hard to argue why exchanging sexual favour for money in a safe environment is detrimental/immoral, and or isn't directly an expression of consent). If you put peanut butter on your genitals then your dog is gaining food and human affirmation and the human is gaining sexual gratification what is wrong with this?
If these are meet, i believe all risks are mitigated and so consent in these parameters in informed.
Devil's Advocate - Moral argument against bestiality (Please counter this point)
This is an argument that I'm really struggling to morally and ethically argue against so I'd love to hear and counter points to this.
Power dynamic - This was the major counter point against incest (and though i dislike to draw comparisons to it, the second major point again paedophilia, the first ofc being informed consent) and i believe it strongly applies to bestiality, and that is simply it's impossible to get over the owner-pet power dynamic, (example here is for dogs) you control ever aspect of there life from what and when they eat to when and where they defecate to only state a few, this mean that using this argument (see PD augment explained at top) its hard to truly say if a response to a requests from the owner by a pet is ever fully or totally autonomous decision and not predicated on this relationship and the possible repercussions.
Even in an extreme case lets say the dog has full control over freedom of movement and isn't curtailed in anyway by the human, and is feed by an automated system to remove association with humans (or hunts/scavenges), and was generally able to wonder freely, then that dog would still known that human were above dogs that if a dog snapped at him he could snap back but if a human did the same then this reaction wash not acceptable due to societal and cultural norms, which would be incredibly hard to not learn if they had live around human for any amount of time.
This power dynamic remains and i don't see how it can be over come, (even if you are not a dogs owner and they were brought up wild, humans have a clear domain over animals as far as genetic predisposition to temperament relating to humans) to the point were pray had to develop a genetic fear of human and you take dogs, maybe one of the more genetically divers from their original phenotype seen as wolfs, there must be genetic factor for submission to human will, and they would have been selected for by early human. Even truly wild animals e.g. a wolfs would have genetic knowledge in regards to humans, that at a minimum they were dangerous and higher in the food chain.
Conclusion:
I know this is a long read and congratulation if you made it to the end, I've thought a far bit about informed consent (and it somewhat silly to think animals cannot at least in the moment and during sexual activity and make decisions whether they are comfortable or not with the situation), but i can't overcome the argument for the power dynamic and how it relate to consent and its impactions involving bestiality.
I look forwards to responses.
(P.s. please forgive any grammatical or spelling errors, further forgive any mistakes in my moral/ethical chain of reasoning)
Last edited:
