Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

  • plutopos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    But zoophilia is not about consent at all!

    Scientists use dummy ostriches to collect sperm. Ostriches approach and… use the dummies, by their own volition.

    If there was a human in there, it wouldn’t be very different from the perspective of the real ostrich. So it’d be technically possible to consensually bottom an ostrich.

    But why the fuck would you do it?

    This is what people actually despise about bestiality. It’s a gut feeling, before any rationalisation

    Edit: you could very much argue that the ostrich dummy method is still non-consensual as it involves some form of trickery. But, regardless, I think it’s telling that people would treat it differently depending on whether there was a human in it or not, even though from the animal’s perspective there is no difference.

    • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You should see what ranchers do with their cows and horses. More strict bestiality laws are usually defeated at their request, because they artificially inseminate their animals, and jerk off their prized bulls and horses, the semen of which is worth more than gold.

      Sick fucks, ranchers are the fucking devil. but that’s another story.

    • when@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      “Animals can’t consent” is one of the strongest arguments given against zoophilia. Any conditioned trickery by a human would get considered as sexual misconduct.