There is no misassumption regarding the argument animals do not consent. The fallacy that your Zoephile/Zoophile/Beastialility buddies have sold you and are trying to use to justify their criminal acts is that submission or coerced behavior is consent.
First of all, animals are given no rights in human society and are considered "property" in most cases. This in itself is where we can say animals give no consent.
When we talk about consenting to sexual acts among humans we refer to Informed Consent. Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions. When talking about people giving informed consent in regards to sexual acts the term "age of consent" is especially applied. If we can say that a child might be incapable of comprehending the arguments and information, and thus could give consent, but even after the act of informing the child the consent would not be considered as based on being informed. In other words, a child can still say "yes" and it's not considered informed consent. (This is sometimes called statutory rape) Can you really tell me that anyone with any grip on reality would believe that a farm animal is capable of comprehending the arguments and information better than, say, a ten-year-old child? The only difference between the criminal act of pedophilia and the act your friends are trying to call "Zoephilia" is that the victim has the ability to point out their abuser and say, "He touched me there."
One of the many things I find so reprehensible about the consent argument being applied to beastiality (and with or without the consent argument, that's the real name of it) is that those who do this have shifted to that argument because they could make no headway in trying to decriminalize this activity because of their rights as property owners. It makes me think that they don't even believe their argument; they just will do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to seek legitimacy. Taking the consent track within the furry fandom not embarrasses us as a fandom, but cheapens legitimate civil rights movements that correctly apply consent as a means of legitimacy.
>I'm not a zoephile but I am very into yiffy art, and as a result a certain responsibilty is required of myself and my peers. I think the MOST you can ask anyone with an 'unpopular' interest is to keep a low profile
Then you completely missed my point. If someone is into "Yiffy art", yiffing in fursuits, "tiny sex", sex with plushies, or whatever, whether it's "popular” or "unpopular" with the fandom or the level of embarrassment to the fandom at how high or low a profile those who practice these things is an ongoing argument. I accept them as things that can occur in the privacy of one's home with one or more consenting adults. I'm actually OK with whatever folks do so long as there is consent. Trying to argue that animals can consent is a sad, sick joke that has no basis in the reality that we live in.
When it comes to criminal activity, especially violence and cruelty to animals, there is certainly quite a lot more that the furry fandom can and should do. I can and will say to the "zoophiles" that you're not fooling me. I can say that I resent you trying to hide your criminal activity behind the cover of something that I happen to enjoy. I will not make criminals welcome in my presence or within my community. I can and will report any act of cruelty to animals to any and all local authorities that apply to the individual in question and hope that they are punished severely.
I can also do my best to inform the rest of the furs in this community of the argument put forth by these criminals to legitimize their behavior is a lie. I can encourage other furs not to facilitate this behavior, because it is as much a stain on the fandom as those practicing this criminal behavior. And I feel I am perfectly within my rights not to approve of anyone who would condone this act of cruelty against animals, either.
If we as a fandom or community cannot, as a majority, say that this is a criminal act and that we do not approve of this, then what other criminal acts can we condone so long as there is some type of “furry” tie-in? Would I be within my rights to argue for the legitimacy of clubbing these individuals to death, so long as I dressed them in baby seal outfits first? I much prefer the notion that any society, with any semblance of order and no matter how friendly or welcoming, has some standard of what is acceptable for being considered a member. I think it is well within the grasp of any group that has an interest in animals to shun those who criminally abuse animals for their own selfish sexual gratification.
There is no misassumption regarding the argument animals do not consent. The fallacy that your Zoephile/Zoophile/Beastialility buddies have sold you and are trying to use to justify their criminal acts is that submission or coerced behavior is consent.
First of all, animals are given no rights in human society and are considered "property" in most cases. This in itself is where we can say animals give no consent.
When we talk about consenting to sexual acts among humans we refer to Informed Consent. Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions. When talking about people giving informed consent in regards to sexual acts the term "age of consent" is especially applied. If we can say that a child might be incapable of comprehending the arguments and information, and thus could give consent, but even after the act of informing the child the consent would not be considered as based on being informed. In other words, a child can still say "yes" and it's not considered informed consent. (This is sometimes called statutory rape) Can you really tell me that anyone with any grip on reality would believe that a farm animal is capable of comprehending the arguments and information better than, say, a ten-year-old child? The only difference between the criminal act of pedophilia and the act your friends are trying to call "Zoephilia" is that the victim has the ability to point out their abuser and say, "He touched me there."
One of the many things I find so reprehensible about the consent argument being applied to beastiality (and with or without the consent argument, that's the real name of it) is that those who do this have shifted to that argument because they could make no headway in trying to decriminalize this activity because of their rights as property owners. It makes me think that they don't even believe their argument; they just will do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to seek legitimacy. Taking the consent track within the furry fandom not embarrasses us as a fandom, but cheapens legitimate civil rights movements that correctly apply consent as a means of legitimacy.
>I'm not a zoephile but I am very into yiffy art, and as a result a certain responsibilty is required of myself and my peers. I think the MOST you can ask anyone with an 'unpopular' interest is to keep a low profile
Then you completely missed my point. If someone is into "Yiffy art", yiffing in fursuits, "tiny sex", sex with plushies, or whatever, whether it's "popular” or "unpopular" with the fandom or the level of embarrassment to the fandom at how high or low a profile those who practice these things is an ongoing argument. I accept them as things that can occur in the privacy of one's home with one or more consenting adults. I'm actually OK with whatever folks do so long as there is consent. Trying to argue that animals can consent is a sad, sick joke that has no basis in the reality that we live in.
When it comes to criminal activity, especially violence and cruelty to animals, there is certainly quite a lot more that the furry fandom can and should do. I can and will say to the "zoophiles" that you're not fooling me. I can say that I resent you trying to hide your criminal activity behind the cover of something that I happen to enjoy. I will not make criminals welcome in my presence or within my community. I can and will report any act of cruelty to animals to any and all local authorities that apply to the individual in question and hope that they are punished severely.
I can also do my best to inform the rest of the furs in this community of the argument put forth by these criminals to legitimize their behavior is a lie. I can encourage other furs not to facilitate this behavior, because it is as much a stain on the fandom as those practicing this criminal behavior. And I feel I am perfectly within my rights not to approve of anyone who would condone this act of cruelty against animals, either.
If we as a fandom or community cannot, as a majority, say that this is a criminal act and that we do not approve of this, then what other criminal acts can we condone so long as there is some type of “furry” tie-in? Would I be within my rights to argue for the legitimacy of clubbing these individuals to death, so long as I dressed them in baby seal outfits first? I much prefer the notion that any society, with any semblance of order and no matter how friendly or welcoming, has some standard of what is acceptable for being considered a member. I think it is well within the grasp of any group that has an interest in animals to shun those who criminally abuse animals for their own selfish sexual gratification.