|
Aswad -> RE: Unusual Submissive Fetishes (7/29/2007 6:21:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MilkMaidDomme
The problem with your rationale is that animals do not possess the same thought processes that we do, therefore they are not able to reason and simply act on instinct.
By your rationale, where does one draw the line?
The line between instinct and reason is thin, and ill defined.
Most animals reason to some extent, as shown in experiments.
The degree of reasoning, however, varies, just as it does for humans.
Our only advantage in this regard is the added sixth layer of the neocortex.
At one point, when I was pretty damn arrogant, I felt that no person with less than at least one sigma above average intelligence should be allowed to have sex. Ever. That would be as reasonable a demand as any demand that human standards of reasoning should be applied to animals. In time, I came to see the folly of both. A being puts as much into sexual contact as they can comprehend. The only consequences that could conceivably be relevant that require higher reasoning are offspring, STDs and various accidents that can happen. All of these can be offloaded on one of the parties.
Humans are creatures of instinct and habit, as much as any other animal (and, yes, we are animals, little different from apes). Did you reason your way into the lifestyle? Or did your "heart" (instincts/urges) lead you here? Does every aspect of your sexuality fit in a model devised by your rational mind? If not, then you're arguing from a very weak position if you wish to posit that these demands should be placed on others.
quote:
I will probably end up receiving email telling me what a narrow minded b*tch I am, but it is my opinion that K9, horses, sheep, cows..whatever animal is in question, is just another way to exploit innocent and unsuspecting animals. [8|]
Frequently, it is. No argument there. Particularly when the human is male.
Similarly, a lot of human sexual relations are just another way for cynical men to exploit innocent and unsuspecting women. Peer pressure and other factors come to mind. But from nature, we are set up in a certain way. While you can expect humans to act like divine, omniscient beings, that's just setting yourself up for disappointment. And coddling them by "protecting" them from "inappropriate" relations is just depriving them of freedom.
But let's stick with horses, for instance, as you mentioned those.
There are two options: either they cannot consent, period, and should not be allowed to engage in relations with other horses, but rather be condemned to extinction because it is the moral thing to do, or they have a concept of consent that is adequate to their needs and concerns. In the latter case, they have the ability to apply this concept. If one assumes extinguishing every species that cannot be proven to have a human capacity for consent is unviable, then we are left with an option that implies that they can judge for themselves, as no western morals I am familiar with allow a guardian to determine that sex shall occur.
Now, if they can judge for themselves, that leaves the matter of communication.
In the instance of horses, they are huge, prone to kicking, and quite able to crush bone and even skulls, if they wish. In fact, they often do so if frightened, provided the people around aren't smart enough to stay out of the way up front. Horses are skittish. There is simply no way you can get behind or under a horse without either exercising so much force that it is clearly rape, or otherwise leaving it with the option of harming, injuring or killing you at its own discretion. If you've been with horses (in the regular sense, I mean; riding, caring for, that sort of thing), then you already know this.
It is clear that, in this scenario, the human party is at risk, and depends entirely on the horse trusting said human and agreeing to the interaction in question. But the human party has the capacity to give informed consent, we will assume. So, in the end, you either get a human who didn't get any, in some state of health that may or may not be similar to the one they started out with, or you get a human and a horse who are both happy about what happened.
From talking to people who do this kind of thing (I do not, FYI), it takes a lot of time to "court" most animals.
And, note, I do not condone coercing or forcing an animal to do anything that isn't necessary to retain its health (e.g. taking it to the vet), nor harming, injuring or killing one in any way, nor exposing one to risk of such things. Yet if one relates to them at their own level, rather than holding them to human standards (which would be demonic, as any dog owner whose dog has "felt responsible" for domestic problems beyond the scope of its comprehension will tell you), then it becomes apparent that there are a wide range of relations and activities an animal can enjoy.
Taking them for a stroll is only one of the options.
Which ones are available, depend on your own inclinations.
|
|
|
|
