kat_lair: (HP - dangerously over-educated)
kat_lair ([personal profile] kat_lair) wrote2014-10-28 03:46 pm

Quote of the day, the bestiality edition

***

“Interspecies sexual assault is the product of a masculinity that sees women, animals and nature as objects that can be controlled, manipulated and exploited. Listen only to some of the sexist language that prepare the way for bodily sexual assault […] When a man describes women as ‘cows’, ‘bitches’, ‘(dumb) bunnies’, ‘birds’, ‘chicks’, ‘foxes’, ‘fresh meat’, and their genitalia as ‘beavers’ or ‘pussies’, he uses derogatory language to distance himself emotionally from, and to elevate himself above, his prey by relegating them to a male-constructed category of ‘less than human’ or, more importantly, ‘less than me’." (Beirne, 1997: 327)

Full Ref:
Beirne, P. (1997). Rethinking bestiality: towards a concept of interspecies sexual assault. Theoretical Criminology 1, 317–340.


***
trialia: Ziva David (Cote de Pablo), head down, hair wind-streamed, eyes almost closed. (Default)

[personal profile] trialia 2014-10-29 03:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Mm... I have to say the concept of consent between species that don't communicate in an understandable way is a major issue with me so far as bestiality-as-kink is concerned, largely because it intersects with the idea of rape as kink which, if we're talking consensual rape fantasy, you can argue shows that if non-consensual rape isn't legal due to the harm it causes, then probably/possibly bestiality shouldn't be either unless a definite form of consent from animal species can be confirmed - I don't want to get further into this right now, but you take my point, yes?

[identity profile] kat-lair.livejournal.com 2014-10-29 06:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh I get your point perfectly and consent is of course a major issue here. The term 'animal /interspecies sexual abuse' has actually gained use over the last fifteen years or so. Argument going that bestiality should in fact be considered comparable to sexual assault against adults or children due to, and I quote, "(1) human-animal sexual relations almost always involve coercion; (2) such practices often cause animals pain and even death; and (3) animals are unable either to communicate consent to us in a form that we can readily understand or to speak out about their abuse." - So you see consent crops up. The social philosophy article I referred to in the above conversation made some interesting philosophical arguments about whether we should apply the criteria of informed consent to animals who will never be capable of it etc - happy to send it to you too if you want some 'light' reading, lemme know.