>>38205349>Animals can't give consentSo it's just impossible to know what an animal wants then? If that were true then pet ownership would be incredibly unethical since we'd be much more likely to make them unhappy than happy by random chance. In reality you can know if an animal is happy pretty easily. You can tell if they don't want something pretty easily. If you're not a total austist then reading animal emotions is fairly trivial, easier than reading human emotions in many cases. They can't literally use English to say "yeah that's nice" but they don't need to. We're sufficiently perceptive and they're sufficiently emotive.
A lot of people fall into the trap of projecting the concept of human consent on animals, but that's incorrect. Animals are uncomplicated about sex. Humans have crazyass 6d puzzles built into sexual interaction. With an animal, just try to do something and stop if they don't like it. Wow, so difficult.
>>38205368Read the above. You're taking a reactive emotional stance here. I wouldn't consider a Pokemon to be like a child you raise, and exant animals aren't children either. They're adults of their species, and they have adult-tier wants and such. Sexual interaction is often one of those wants. I consider adult Pokemon to be more or less equals on many fronts.
To maybe make things clearer to you on my stance: I wouldn't fuck a young 'mon and I wouldn't fuck a 'mon that I hatched and raised. The former is pedophilia which is wrong because fucking something before sexual maturity is wrong. The latter is wrong because it's basically grooming and that's creepy. I'm not for catching a 'mon and slowly indoctrinating it into sex. That's fucked.
>>38205383kek I didn't think I'd get so many (you)s. You might be right, both sides are going to be pretty embedded. It's end of thread thought, so might as well send it off right.
>>38205398Reductio ad absurdum. Argue sensibly please.
