Item — HN Reader

Thanks for the interesting thoughts, your questions definitely makes sense to me.

"Children and animals can’t consent" view from _mst is a non perfect position but perhaps better that considering the opposite? Children can be groomed to consent and others animals training to. Here's a sensitive topic but I think it adds to the conversation: It has been reported dogs been used to rape humans. That's horrific for the victim, however consider this: sure the dog somewhat consent, but is it his own will if the trainer ask him to?

This is not to contradict you demonstration based on erection. Regulations for animals are sometimes justified, though they are extremely loose when tied to consumption.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260301174553/https://www.972ma...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMClnrt6p1U

1 comments

I think the 'children can't consent' concept generally works.

I think the 'animals can't consent' thing is a retroactive justification for what is either ick, or a religious hangover.

I've had female dogs on heat try to hump me. Is that not consent?

We don't get dogs permission before breeding them.

The concept of bodily autonomy for animals is basically non existent.

The argument was originally that it was 'unnatural' but gay rights put the nail in the coffin there. 'consent' sounds good, but it isn't what's going on. It's the same 'unnatural' position, without the intellectual honesty.

Problem for me is. I kind of agree with the current cultural position. But there's no actual framework around it, and I don't like arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons.

Your dog's exemples are fair, we align on that.

unnatural argument is to be ignored IMHO, it does't makes sense outside our emotional feeling and has multiple (and contradictory) interpretation so you'll end up arguing on each cases and don't have a rule/framework.

A thought experiment from Jonathan Haidt:

> Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are stay- ing alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it OK for them to make love?

edit: Confusing story isn't it ? Here's an short but thorough analyse https://www.kevindorst.com/uploads/8/8/1/7/88177244/haidt_20...

0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

I'm not saying unnatural is a good position. It is at least consistent with the attitudes we see.

Re the thought experiment. The standard argument is that of birth defects, which is obviously avoided. You could point to evolutionary pressures for the taboo also.

The thing is, kind of like pedophilia we've drawn a hard line. You could make the argument that someone the day before their 16th birthday is the same as the day after, therefore it's ok. I think the line being clear has more utility than the alternative. In this situation we're being invited to redraw a line, but where to put it? Do we make the getting pregnant illegal? Not being careful enough? So I would keep the line where it is.