- Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
please cite an animal behavior paper that supports your claim
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the racists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them to they show less resistance to our violations.
Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
none of these are animal communicative behavioral studies showing non human animals can understand and consent to reproduction
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?