Darwin, Rape, and Consent

Let’s face it. Too many people will never accept that animals have a brain and can think. This is wholly evident and expressible by the opposition to Darwin's theory of evolution. Even though the statement is old and worn ‘people are stupid, a person is smart’ it still holds true. I hope that the ‘you’ that is reading this right now is a person with their own brain and thought process. We are going to explore a psychological trait that is deeply rooted in Religious 'rigormaroar'.

Darwin, the name who brought us evolution, but would you also consider Christian in that association? It’s true that Darwin was a Christian, a very devout one at that. He was very happily married and had children all of whom subscribed and lived in a Christian household. Darwin was also a scientist, of which he is most well known. He was quite possibly too good of a scientist for his and his wife’s tastes. You see he actually discovered and wrote his ideas of evolution years before it was ever made public. They sat on his desk and in his head for years. Why? The church and his faith are why.

He, as was his wife, were taught and subscribed to the theory that we were all made 'in his image', *poof* there we are, like magic - if it is allowed to be called that. He discovered that this had, in fact, not occurred quite as they were taught to believe. We as all animals were once another species and though a long and slow process of genetic mutations and natural selection were shaped into the creatures we see and know today. Of course this was blastmaphy and could only be the work of the devil.

Because of this deep rooted religious conditioning Darwin's theory met with very harsh criticism. Why? Because the church conditioned people to believe that we, as humans, are separated from the animal world by way of divine design. Darwin basically proved that we are all animals.

That was a long time ago and it still causes a stir in allot of people across the world. It is not uncommon for schools in the US to not teach the theory because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. One state still requires any text book containing the theory of evolution to have a sticker on it stating that information contained within the book are presented as academic and are unproven theories.

The idea of separating ourselves from the animal world continues today. It is a topic we will visit regularly. And we are only looking at one aspect of the psychological separation. We as a populace see less value, if any, in the life of an animal. Yet we go to great lengths to spurn those who do the same to human life.

Why? Because, animals are regarded a lesser creature and lesser life than humans. Or so we are conditioned to believe. Now I am not debating abortion or the theory of evolution. I am laying out the basis for our original statement, “Too many people will never accept that animals have a brain and can think". Through all of this animals still fill numerous roles within our lives. Depending on who you are they can be a friend, family member, pet, surrogate child, pest, or any number of things. Yet few people would consider an animal as a potential lover.
Again we can immediately hear the Religious 'rigormaroar' coming our way. Sidestepping the freight train we narrow the argument to one basic thought, consent. Why do we innately believe that animals cannot give consent? Because we have been taught for years to believe that. We are conditioned to believe that animals are dumb beasts subservient to our wishes. This is because, as we have stated before, God created man in his image.

Who has ever been stung by a bee or bitten by a dog? Who has ever told a dog so sit and he did when no treat was involved? How many of us head to the toilet when we need to go? How many times does your dog 'come' when he would rather chase a squirrel? How many children do the same?

These are all cognitive choices made by individuals.

Let us consider what rape really is. It is an action of control. The person committing the act seeks satisfaction by achieving two key goals. The first is removing control from the victim. By doing this they are showing the victim that they are no longer in control of their life and must submit to the actions of the attacker. The second is control. By forcing themselves onto the victim they are showing dominance over the victim. The act can be violent with hitting, physical restraint and control. Or non-violent with the use of drugs or cohesion. The act is not driven be the need or desire to have sex but, by the need to be in control. This is done by making the victim defenseless and showing that they are no longer in control.

Keeping this in mind. Let us examine the commonly accepted method of dog breeding. When a female dog, a bitch, is in heat she is placed in a kennel where male dogs can see her. The dogs are not reacting to the sight of her; they are reacting to the smell of her. A dog in heat gives of a sent filled with pheromones that make the male dogs want to mate her. Now in a normal setting the dogs would sniff, run, court, and before the mating took place the female would either; A) move her tail and allow the courter to mount her or B) Bark, run off and attack the male if they were persistent in their courting. The female is able to choose her mate.

The breeder does things a little differently. Known as 'orchestrating' a breeding the breeder essitintaly forces the two dogs to mate. Some techniques are as extensive as binding the female to a bench so she cannot move. To holding the pair together to ensure a knotting. Either way, the dogs have little say. If the dogs decide that they want nothing to do with the whole deal they can say 'No'. Ever been bitten? However, the breeder will quickly remedy the situation with a muzzle and continue. If one of the dogs decides that they still don’t' want to the breeder can 'Tickle' or masturbate the dog. Dogs like humans physically respond to sexual stimulation. The dog still bound and muzzled is forced to erection and onto the unwilling bitch. Overall when the breeder says that its time, its time.
I challenge any person to find a zoosexual who goes to such lengths. Zoosexuals by definition are people who are sexually attracted to one or more species of (non-human) animals. Remember the definition of rape? It included no utterance of sexual attraction. Power and control is the key when speaking of rape. None of which are relevant to the definition of a zoosexual. Even when comparing a bestialist and a zoophile there is no correlation with rape. Both are subdivisions of zoosexuals and both enjoy having sex with animals. The only difference is zoophiles do it as a connection and expression of love, while a bestialist does it for the sex. Either way you look there are no factors related to rape involved in either process.
The problem is not the idea of someone having sex with the dog or other animal and the animal welcoming and enjoying the activity. The problem is we are conditioned as a society to look down on the mortal being and intelligence of animals as lesser creatures. We are ultimately afraid that we are nothing more than animals ourselves and have become convinced in our minds that this act brings us closer to being like animals and less like being god.
I think the idea that an animal can say 'No' is obviously true. Animals can consent.