fchan

>>971

Depending on the State, the age of consent ranges from between 14 to 18.  But why did states pick these ages?  Does something magical happen on somebody's birthday when they turn 18 that put s them in the market for sex? 

I've made the case before that consent is a legal standard and not a moral one.  It never has been and it never will be.  In fact, I would argue that the standards for consent were invented in order to eliminate ambiguity when judging sexual relations between humans of different ages or to legally define rape in the traditional sense.  It may be legal for an 19 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, but not for a 25 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, depending on the local laws.

But why make these laws in the first place?  The reason why most laws are written is to protect people and society at large from harm, and rape, statutory rape and child rape laws are no exception.  But what harm is inflicted when people have sex without legal consent?

With conventional rape, the harm in obvious.  Rape is an inherently violent crime because it is both a theft and an invasion of another person's body.  In nearly all cases, the act of rape leaves deep emotional scars and wounds.  In order to prevent harm to people (adult women, mostly) our society made laws against rape.

Statutory rape is intended to protect teenagers from the consequences of having sex.  Young people are often prone to taking unnecessary risks, making foolish choices, and are easily fool by older, more experienced people.  A young and foolish person may be taken advantage of by an older person simply because they do not fully comprehend the risks (STDs) associated with sex, nor are they capable of dealing with the potential responsibilities of sex (such as becoming pregnant).  Because of the risks involved, coupled with the foolishness of youth, we consider having sex with a minor a form of exploitation.  If harm never came to them (if there was no risk), then perhaps society would have a different view.

Child rape has been made a crime for two major reasons.  First, children do not need to be burdened with sex because they deserve a childhood.  Secondly and most importantly, sex with a child by an adult or older minor causes great psychological harm to the child (regardless of how much they enjoyed it or wanted it).  In order to protect children from being warped psychologically, our society has made laws against both child pornography and child rape.

The morality of consent and the legality of rape are both based on the deeper morality of preventing harm.  In order for an anti-zoo consent argument to work, anti-zoos must establish that having sex with an animal causes harm and/or violates animal rights. 

Without establishment of universal harm and/or the universal violation of animal rights, consent arguments have no foundational basis and are, thus, invalid.

Anti-zoos must make this link in order to have a case.  Otherwise, consent is a just as much a non-issue as is the morality of making animals wear clothes.

>>800

“That means the problem they have is sex, and only the sex. Not the pleasure, the sex.” 

That’s because they are a bunch of puritanical ogres.

“You'll never give the cows a bull, because you like the setup you got.”

That would be the preferred setup, yes.

“My opinion; I don't know whether bestiality is, in itself, good or bad, but I'm pretty sure that you are a bad person, because you're using living things to fulfill your fantasies and perverted lusts. You're cows are gimps. Living sex toys. They're doomed, because you know how to manipulate their instincts, and you're self centered and perverted enough to use this knowledge so you can get your rocks off.”

Whoa, settle down there, Jerry Fallwell!  Aren’t you being a little harsh on the guy?  Yeah, you’re probably right about him and his motivation, but I don’t think that makes him a horrible person.  It makes him an imperfect person, yes, but “far removed from a good guy”?  I can’t say we know enough about him to make that sort of judgment.  Also, do you know enough about him and his circumstances?  Maybe he can’t afford to buy his cows a bull or maybe he isn’t set up to support any resultant calves that may come about from such unions.  Also, vasectomies for any animal are unusual procedures, so finding a vet for a bull may be very difficult if not impossible.  Also, bulls don’t necessarily have sufficient sex drive.  Sometimes they just aren’t that interested in sex (so they get sent to slaughter, rather then the breeding pen).

Yeah, you could be right about him, but next time, try and find out more about a person before you fly off the handle and make personal attacks.

Also, “doomed”?  Come on, let’s not exaggerate things. 

Doom (n) – A dreadful fate, especially death or utter ruin

Cut the emotional crap!  You can say that his cows are being taken advantage of, etc, but not doomed.  Unless you can establish that some grave harm will come to his cows because he finger-fucks them, please refrain from such irrational language.  At worst it kills your credibility and at best it distracts your audience from the core of your argument.

>>981

"lightbulb* and why exactly should sex be different than petting.. no that isn’t a good analogy ... okay here is a good analogy"

It is different because it’s sex.  No, really!   That’s the reason!  Well, that and the fact that the human gets pleasure from it (because enjoying the act automatically makes it selfish by there logic).  If only you could have sex without any pleasure what so ever.  Only then would the anti-zoos be okay with finger fucks and boning.

Actually, the anti-zoo argument is that sex with an animal requires the human to obtain consent from the animal on the level that humans consent.  But why does this apply to just sex and not medial procedures?  Human doctors need consent from there patients before they perform procedures.  In fact, the level of consent required for medical procedures is several times greater than that required for two humans to have sex.

If Human doctors need human patient consent, why are Human vets excused from obtaining consent from there animal patients?  If it holds true that humans need human-level consent to have sex with animals, surly vets must have there patients sign consent forms before they begin.

Of course, the anti-zoos will say that pet owners have guardianship over there animals have power to make choices like that for there animals (in much the same vein as Power of Attorney).  (I will refrain from tearing this logic apart as legalism).  But in order for that to work, you’d have to ignore the fact that society still considers animals as property and requires most people to collar, tag and license there domestic animals/pets.  Unlike a pet, the humans we have guardianship over are not collared and licensed and if we non-sexually petted them in the same fashion that we pet out animals, we would likely have civil services file suit against us for sexually harassment.