As for the consent part with animals, plenty of men think women give their consent in rape cases, so how can an animal speak up for itself when the human is doing the interpreting?
Marta
Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
> >From what I heard in the U.S. Army from the farm boys, and
> what I read in Kinsey, there's nothing new about having sex
> with animals. (There are also quite a few pictures on the
> Net, I believe.) Since people don't ask the animals' consent
> before confining, torturing, sickening, or killing them, it
> seems odd to require it before having sex with them, except
> for an animal liberation / rights type. I think most people
> are off that board, so their objection to having sex with
> animals must have another basis than lack of consent. The
> Old Testament, perhaps.
>
> For the animal rights, etc., types, the question of consent
> actually arises. Now, many people think they can detect
> consent in some animals. For instance, I have two cats who
> both seem to understand what being picked up means to the
> extent of anticipating it under certain circumstances, and
> one appears to consent while the other doesn't. This
> anecdote does not mean that I have sex with my cats. But
> it does indicate that an animal can appear to consent to at
> least some social activities with humans. That being the
> case, those animal-rights, etc., fans who believe that an
> animal cannot consent to have sex with a human being need to
> refine their case, at least if they think it is all right
> for humans to socialize in any way with animals. (PETA
> is not included; they think even keeping pets is wrong.)
>
> Singer, as usual, appears to be playing the contrarian.
> It seems like a fairly cheap shot this time; popular
> mores are always full of odd contradictions.
-- Marta Russell author, Los Angeles, CA http://disweb.org/ Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract http://www.commoncouragepress.com/russell_ramps.html