Actually, from what I've observed, with animals sex is not so much a matter of consent as it is compulsion. Take for example a video I saw on YouTube recently of a rabbit going to town on a round white ball. Does the rabbit have any conception of why it feels the need to go to town on any object that has a shape that triggers its genetic programming? Or is it an irresistible natural compulsion?
If this is the case, and a dog sees a bent over human as having that shape that triggers that compulsion, is that consent, or is it abuse of the human's responsibilities as the animal's care taker if he takes advantage of the animal's confusion?
In the other instance, where a human goes to town on the dog without regard to any injuries that could result, the dog is trained to be obedient or be punished. It couldn't consent or refuse if it had the ability to. So, any way you look at it, the human has abused his responsibility as the animal's caretaker.
But you could then say, "But the dog is a slave with no rights. So the human is within his rights to do with his property as he pleases." But the law in certain states has granted the animal a right to not be abused in this manner by a human owner. And this seems a pretty spectacular thing. Imagine slaves having rights.
Unfortunately, no right for the animal to consent is implied in this law. Whether the animal would enjoy having sex with a human is not considered relevant by this law, because the law does not conceive the animal as having the capacity to make such decisions on anything other than pure impulse.
Therefore this is a law to regulate the behavior of humans – not really much of a right for the animals. Just a token really - a concession of the greater evil of animal slavery in order that society might give animal molesters a punishment for lowering its human dignity. And once that is done, the animal is back where it started – no rights at all, except where it pertains to being kept as a slave in a manner that does not offend human dignity.
As for the average Furry who owns pets, I'd say they do not buy animals so much as they adopt them. And they do not own them as much as treating them as a member of the family.
Furry pet owners are no different from most other pet owners. They grant rights and respect to animals above and beyond what the law dictates. And most would probably look on bestiality in the same sense as child molestation. You simply to not take advantage of an innocent being in your care that way. And the guilt is always on the adult human who was supposed to have the good sense to understand the harm such things could cause.
On the other paw, the human is just like the rabbit or the dog. If it feels the need to go to town, there are probably innumerable objects around the house it can go to town on. If not, there are stores that supply such objects. The human never has the need to force its compulsions on an animal, or another human being for that matter. Man is the only animal with unlimited options for getting off, the only animal credited with being able to grasp the concept of responsibility, and therefore the only animal without an excuse.
Humans, be they Furries or not, do not commonly acknowledge the ability of animals to consent, any more than they do small children. Furries tend to be proponents of the idea that animals have intelligence and personality, but most Furries I've read on the subject suggest that intelligence never gets beyond that of a small, dependent child. Thus, no matter how long the animal lives, the human is never morally relieved of the responsibility of caretaker.
Furries do go along with some theoretically barbaric practices, like having their pets surgically altered. But they do so only because they have been convinced this is good for the animal. They don't do such things out of depraved indifference.
Certainly the average Furry pet owner thinks he is treating his animals morally. But of course, there's no law of nature that suggests a Furry has to be at all intelligent. Especially when they living in a world where people endlessly argue on behalf of doing the wrong thing, and they are constantly encouraged to go the stupid route.
If that's what happened to this fellow I feel sorry for him. I hope his time in jail straightens him out from any nonsense he read on the internet to the effect that molesting animals would not be harmful to them, or to himself.
Actually, from what I've observed, with animals sex is not so much a matter of consent as it is compulsion. Take for example a video I saw on YouTube recently of a rabbit going to town on a round white ball. Does the rabbit have any conception of why it feels the need to go to town on any object that has a shape that triggers its genetic programming? Or is it an irresistible natural compulsion?
If this is the case, and a dog sees a bent over human as having that shape that triggers that compulsion, is that consent, or is it abuse of the human's responsibilities as the animal's care taker if he takes advantage of the animal's confusion?
In the other instance, where a human goes to town on the dog without regard to any injuries that could result, the dog is trained to be obedient or be punished. It couldn't consent or refuse if it had the ability to. So, any way you look at it, the human has abused his responsibility as the animal's caretaker.
But you could then say, "But the dog is a slave with no rights. So the human is within his rights to do with his property as he pleases." But the law in certain states has granted the animal a right to not be abused in this manner by a human owner. And this seems a pretty spectacular thing. Imagine slaves having rights.
Unfortunately, no right for the animal to consent is implied in this law. Whether the animal would enjoy having sex with a human is not considered relevant by this law, because the law does not conceive the animal as having the capacity to make such decisions on anything other than pure impulse.
Therefore this is a law to regulate the behavior of humans – not really much of a right for the animals. Just a token really - a concession of the greater evil of animal slavery in order that society might give animal molesters a punishment for lowering its human dignity. And once that is done, the animal is back where it started – no rights at all, except where it pertains to being kept as a slave in a manner that does not offend human dignity.
As for the average Furry who owns pets, I'd say they do not buy animals so much as they adopt them. And they do not own them as much as treating them as a member of the family.
Furry pet owners are no different from most other pet owners. They grant rights and respect to animals above and beyond what the law dictates. And most would probably look on bestiality in the same sense as child molestation. You simply to not take advantage of an innocent being in your care that way. And the guilt is always on the adult human who was supposed to have the good sense to understand the harm such things could cause.
On the other paw, the human is just like the rabbit or the dog. If it feels the need to go to town, there are probably innumerable objects around the house it can go to town on. If not, there are stores that supply such objects. The human never has the need to force its compulsions on an animal, or another human being for that matter. Man is the only animal with unlimited options for getting off, the only animal credited with being able to grasp the concept of responsibility, and therefore the only animal without an excuse.
Humans, be they Furries or not, do not commonly acknowledge the ability of animals to consent, any more than they do small children. Furries tend to be proponents of the idea that animals have intelligence and personality, but most Furries I've read on the subject suggest that intelligence never gets beyond that of a small, dependent child. Thus, no matter how long the animal lives, the human is never morally relieved of the responsibility of caretaker.
Furries do go along with some theoretically barbaric practices, like having their pets surgically altered. But they do so only because they have been convinced this is good for the animal. They don't do such things out of depraved indifference.
Certainly the average Furry pet owner thinks he is treating his animals morally. But of course, there's no law of nature that suggests a Furry has to be at all intelligent. Especially when they living in a world where people endlessly argue on behalf of doing the wrong thing, and they are constantly encouraged to go the stupid route.
If that's what happened to this fellow I feel sorry for him. I hope his time in jail straightens him out from any nonsense he read on the internet to the effect that molesting animals would not be harmful to them, or to himself.