Comment on New idea
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week agoAll 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?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
consent is informed. you haven’t shown animals can be informed and, therefore, give consent
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.
I want to say pretty much all of the research I’ve presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don’t consent males literally cannot fuck them.
The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.
You’re restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn’t a good argument
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I’m restricting it because we need an agreeable definition. I wouldn’t agree that you can give consent to sex without being informed. so the whole idea of animal consent is absurd. if we can’t agree on the definition of consent, there is no point in continuing
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
What do you mean by informed?