"but I think you'll find most take a view that favours the animal's welfare except in a situation like bestiality."
I am confused by that last sentence. Are you saying that a human being having sex with an animal is looking out for their welfare?
If so, no, if the human cared about their welfare they would allow them to have sex with their own species, because statistically that's probably what they want. If you force a gay person to have sex with a straight person you're not looking out for their welfare, if one forces an animal to have sex with them and not the creature of their own species which they would probably rather have, that's not looking out for their welfare.
The thing is when we keep animals as pets, as you kind of point out, it is sort of caging them up and limiting their experiences, how do we know that if a pet shows 'consent' then by humping a human's leg that it is not purely a case of Stockholm syndrome? I'm sure that many pets don't have access to others of their species (some might if the owner has two pets or there are other of the species in the neighborhood), and therefore if they are truly like humans, do their behaviors start to alter from the norm because of their position? Is it truely consent, or was it consent manufactured by the psychological manipulation of being dependant on a human?
If someone kidnaps a human being and the kidnapped human later willingly has sex with them, it is still typically not seen as consensual and as sexual assault (Jaycee Lee Dugard). So if a human takes an animal and keeps them in their backyard for a decade, that when something occurs it's not sexual assault?
If you want your animal to get their rocks off, send them to a breeder. I'm sure they're more equipped to deal with their "welfare". Give them real ability to make choices, not just use power over them to sway their choices.
"but I think you'll find most take a view that favours the animal's welfare except in a situation like bestiality."
I am confused by that last sentence. Are you saying that a human being having sex with an animal is looking out for their welfare?
If so, no, if the human cared about their welfare they would allow them to have sex with their own species, because statistically that's probably what they want. If you force a gay person to have sex with a straight person you're not looking out for their welfare, if one forces an animal to have sex with them and not the creature of their own species which they would probably rather have, that's not looking out for their welfare.
The thing is when we keep animals as pets, as you kind of point out, it is sort of caging them up and limiting their experiences, how do we know that if a pet shows 'consent' then by humping a human's leg that it is not purely a case of Stockholm syndrome? I'm sure that many pets don't have access to others of their species (some might if the owner has two pets or there are other of the species in the neighborhood), and therefore if they are truly like humans, do their behaviors start to alter from the norm because of their position? Is it truely consent, or was it consent manufactured by the psychological manipulation of being dependant on a human?
If someone kidnaps a human being and the kidnapped human later willingly has sex with them, it is still typically not seen as consensual and as sexual assault (Jaycee Lee Dugard). So if a human takes an animal and keeps them in their backyard for a decade, that when something occurs it's not sexual assault?
If you want your animal to get their rocks off, send them to a breeder. I'm sure they're more equipped to deal with their "welfare". Give them real ability to make choices, not just use power over them to sway their choices.