Because I want to establish myself as a sick deev as soon as possible.
So as far as I understand, the rationale for bestiality being illegal is that the animal can’t give any informed consent. There’s also the “ick” factor, of course, but you can’t get up in court and say, “This guy did something really squicky”. This leads me to wonder: what if the animal could give consent?
So say you (well, not YOU, obviously) had a case of hots for Koko the signing gorilla. Koko signs that, yes, she’s all ape over you, and wants to make hot monkey love. (Sorry. I won’t make any jokes about the primate with two backs, promise). In court you argue that, hey, she said it was alright. Koko is called up, and pledges her lifelong devotion to you on the witness stand.
So, legal scholars: do you get to walk down the isle with your radient, hairy bride, or do you get locked up for being a bad monkey?
Erm, how exactly would Koko do that? Myths of apes learning sign language are pretty well myths. Even though some apes were trained to make some signs, there has never been an ape that truly communicated using ASL.
Or is that not what you meant? If this is hypothetical then perhaps GD would have been a better forum (although I am not a mod).
If that is the case, I guess that if an ape, a monkey, a turkey, a dog, a chicken, a mouse or a turtle could stand up in court and say I want to make hot monkey love to Malleus, Incus, Stapes! I would have no problem with it. Well, assuming the ape/monkey/turkey/dog/chicken/mouse/turtle were over the age of consent.
I think the legal question would be does Koko have the mental capacity to legally give informed consent. There are plenty of 17-year-olds who have ‘said it was alright’, in fact, even sought it out, but under the law, they are not considered adult enough to give informed consent. And that legal point would seem to apply here – clearly, Koko’s mentality is less than that of the average 17-year-old human.
Personally, I doubt your basic premise. I don’t think bestiality is illegal because of a lack of consent. It might be that that is the legal argument that would be give now, but I doubt it’s the historical reason.
I strongly suspect that historically bestiality was illegal because of morality. Sex was only for procreation – or more precisely sex with the absence of the possibility of procreation was frowned wrong the same reason contraceptives were illegal or at least immoral.
Given that this is hypothetical, it has no factual answer. I think it is more suited for GD. There is however a discussion of the legality of bestiality already in progress there.
That is my basic premise, more or less. That the “consent” thing may be the legal justification, but the real force behind the taboo is the “ick factor”.
I find the idea of bestiality disgusting, but as I don’t care much about non-primate, non-cetecean, non-Mrs. Whatsit animals (beyond not wishing to torture them myself) I can’t say I care if someone wants to fuck them without their consent. I can’t see how it’s morally inferior to eating them, which they’d probably object to even more. I guess that makes me a callous bastard.
(snip) Cite? I thought it was fairly well established that the great apes can be taught limited communication with ASL and touch boards. Surely the ability to independently ask for specific items, foods, hugs, communicate basic states of being, etc counts as “communication”. KoKo was shown to sign for things irrelevant to the session, like interrupting it to ask for juice, or to sign she was tired.
Hell, even my dogs can do most of those things, and they are certainly less bright than a gorilla. While it is true that they are performing those behaviors in response to my training, I fail to see any difference between that and a child or adult using the training they received to communicate. They are able to communicate basic desires such as hunger, thirst, loneliness, or the need to go outside on their own; if a cue could be established for sexual interest how would that be any different?. It is certain that animals do not have the taboos about intercourse that humans do, it shouldn’t be too hard to establish “consent”.
Forget Koko and her purported ability to consent using some rudimentary sign language, which may or may not be adequate to express desire for another banana, but is hardly likely to be up to the task of communicating desire for inter-species sexual contact.
What’s wrong with the “ick” factor as a basis for banning bestiality? Aren’t there some things that are so self-evidently icky that there must be something seriously wrong with anyone wishing to engage in such behavior?
And let’s not get into comparisons with same-sex contact, or other forms of sexual expression that are practiced by a minority. There’s no slippery slope here. Bestiality and variant forms of human sexual expression aren’t even close to being in the same category, despite the ignorant rantings of Rick Santorum and his ilk.
I don’t know about that that. Ick factor is purely a cultural response. At any given time, people have routinely engaged in sexual behaviours that we would find reprehensible today yet were considered normal by the standards of the time.
In terms of social mores, I’m libertarian. The fact that I find something disgusting is not, in itself, reason to ban other persons from doing it. At most it’s a reason to say that other persons should not do it in my home.
incest was routinely practiced by both the Egyptians, and many Polynesian aristocracies with little ill effects.
I’m less aware of widely practiced bestiality, but it does appear in historical art and religious accounts of many different cultures. This would imply that while not commonly practiced, it was not always considered as taboo as it is currently.
If an animal were intelligent enough to give ***informed ***consent . . . fully aware of all the ramifications of human sexual intimacy . . . it would have to be considered human, with human rights and human responsibilities.
The same could be said for a small child, or a person with limited mental capacity, or a person in a coma, or someone who was raised by wolves. They don’t have the same type of consciousness as a fully-functioning human adult, so are incapable of giving informed consent.
Interesting point. Say that you have a feral person who initiates sexual behaviour, Are they by their actions giving informed consent, or is any such intimacy to be considered some form of rape? That seems pretty limiting.
I believe many of these condemnations (and thus the ‘ick’ factor) come from the ancient Israelite experience – they tended to condemn what their neighbors/enemies did. It’s a method of ensuring the cohesiveness of your group, by keeping them different from the others around them (like special kosher dietary rules, restrictions on acceptable types of clothing, rules on sex & inter-marriage, etc.).
Many of these have come down into our Judeo-Christian western culture, though the original reasons are forgotten.
