I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
I have had extended discussions in SRD wherein multiple users have stated in no uncertain terms that owning a pet is the same thing as fucking a pet, because you're holding it against its will so therefore consent becomes irrelevant and also that eating a hamburger is worse than raping a cow because murder > rape and "we don't really know what the animals feel so how can we determine the moral aspect of pinning them down and fucking them to completion?"
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
31 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-12-02
This, but unironically.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 trjb 2017-12-02
Don't kink shame, Snappy.
1 xoiz 2017-12-02
Bad bot.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-02
Bad drama pos.... Oh wait. That's me lol
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
Can animals be raped if their male? Discuss.
1 IslamicStatePatriot 2017-12-02
Animals are property, you can't rape them.
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
That sounds like a challenge. Any r/Drama posters care to meet this challenge?
1 WarSanchez 2017-12-02
We were actually in progress of turning /u/Aluzky or whatever in to the FBI for raping his dog.
1 shootyourschoolup 2017-12-02
Isn't that technically downvoting a lolcow? You're fucking sick in the head.
1 WarSanchez 2017-12-02
He was actually raping dogs tho. And posting videos of it.
Ivankasmywaifu reported him and got him banned unfortunately. I wanted to see the headlines.
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
1 Raving_Dave 2017-12-02
Is this a fucking joke?
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
You can't refute my argument, so you just dismiss it as a joke? Okay then.
1 Raving_Dave 2017-12-02
It's a copypasta isn't it? You do realise horse cock can kill you?
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
Cars can kill you too.
There are plenty of people who have had receptive sex with horses without getting injured.
1 Raving_Dave 2017-12-02
Yeah, don't have sex with cars.
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
"Life isn't worth living until you have found something worth dying for"
Dr. Martin Luther King
1 Raving_Dave 2017-12-02
Did he fuck a horse tho?
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
Why do you think the FBI was after him?
1 Raving_Dave 2017-12-02
ha
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
I’m uncomfortable knowing that someone took the time to write this.
1 DannyLee90 2017-12-02
Calm down, Aluzky.
1 GARBAGE_MACHINE 2017-12-02
Ok, wow u little jerk
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-12-02
Don't take your pets to a male feminist vet.
1 mikerhoa 2017-12-02
I have had extended discussions in SRD wherein multiple users have stated in no uncertain terms that owning a pet is the same thing as fucking a pet, because you're holding it against its will so therefore consent becomes irrelevant and also that eating a hamburger is worse than raping a cow because murder > rape and "we don't really know what the animals feel so how can we determine the moral aspect of pinning them down and fucking them to completion?"
These discussions have actually happened.
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-12-02
Oh look a degenerate Canadian. Absolutely zero surprise they fuck animals.
1 fayeDragon 2017-12-02
If she were American she'd run for the Senate and get endorsed by the President.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-12-02
guess i should stop shagging your nan
1 aliceunknown 2017-12-02
French Canadians are weirder than normal Canadians.
1 Senator_Chickpea 2017-12-02
French Canadians are weirder than French Europeans.
1 LSU_Coonass 2017-12-02
i thought some crazy leaf judge unironically made beastiality legal in canada recently
1 tilmoph 2017-12-02
Is this the same chick from that tumblr blog someone posted a while back?
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.