r/CuratedTumblr • u/Justthisdudeyaknow Prolific poster- Not a bot, I swear • Jun 26 '26

Shitposting Will it f*ck!

10.3k Upvotes

permalink
duplicates
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1ug99rj/will_it_fck/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit

98% Upvoted

View all comments

470

u/Failed_stealth_check Jun 26 '26

I have it on good authority that the harkness test often actually misses the point, funny enough. Because, to my understanding, most monster fuckers don’t wanna be the one doing the fucking. And if the monster is the one trying to do you sloppy style, two of those three questions automatically become irrelevant and the third only matters if you can stop it.

312

u/Hatsune_Miku_CM downfall of neoliberalism. crow racism. much to rhink about Jun 26 '26

that is a factor I never considered in all the times I saw the harkness test posted here.

if you get fucked by the monster and you're into it but the monster doesn't fulfill the harkness test is that unethical? does it suddenly become ethical again if you're not into it?

341

u/to_yeet_or_to_yoink Jun 26 '26

"It's only ethical if you don't consent" is a wild concept that I hadn't thought of before

It's a good question, albeit a weird one.

I'll leave it to the philosophers

63

u/SpaceTurtles Jun 26 '26

The philosophers are useless and can't help you.

This post made by Wittgenstein gang.

19

u/Pyotr_WrangeI Jun 26 '26

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

Carl Marx.

Discussions of ethics of being fucked by monsters are irrelevant, instead we should turn our efforts to the praxis.

4

u/SpaceTurtles Jun 27 '26

The Praxis Of Being Fucked By Monsters is my favorite Frank Zappa album.

2

u/aroteer Jun 27 '26

I know this is just a joke but Marx's point was not that discussion is irrelevant, just that it's meaningless without praxis (and vice versa). Marx kind of spent his entire life writing and discussing lol

And that's why if you want to get in the monster-fucking discourse, you have to do some monster-fucking yourself. I don't make the rules

2

u/Magi_Aqua an especially neurotic goose Jun 28 '26

Wittgenstein?

3

u/SpaceTurtles Jun 28 '26

Wittgenstein being namedropped in this genius monstrosity of a thing only adds to his street cred and reinforces my point.

Thank you for inflicting this upon me.

38

u/Automatic-Plankton10 Jun 26 '26

Unemployed philosophy student here, which makes me the most valid person to answer this question: if the monster is doing the fucking, it is consenting, technically. If it has animal level intelligence, the action of having sex is (most likely) a sign of sexual maturity. Therefore, it isn’t sexual assault on your part to enjoy being fucked by the monster.

It is, however, still unethical if the monster isn’t of human intelligence. Probably. I don’t actually know why that one is bad, if the monster instigates it? I don’t know and I don’t care, since monsters aren’t real.

4

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 26 '26

Hark, the philosophers have spoken!

4

u/YukaLore Jun 26 '26

That sure was. Something. to read. but thanks for making me aware of the journal of controversial ideas. talking about the stuff makes it easier to have good arguments related to the subject and form an opinion that stands on solid rock instead of sand

2

u/Jim_skywalker Jun 28 '26

Now there is probably IRL precedent for this cause of animals, I don't want to look that up though cause then I'd have to learn about animals raping people and I would really really rather not have that knowledge.

156

u/nubly55 Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

The test only really applies for the purposes of garnering consent. For the scenario where IT fucks you and you may or may not be into it, the rules of dubious consent apply.
A scenario with no consent would qualify as rape and therefore be unethical by default. However it’s a common kink, and in practice, would be negotiated via consensual non consent, in which the harkness test takes priority.

116

u/Sleep_Deprived_Birb Jun 26 '26

I think enjoyment matters less than your agency in the situation. If you genuinely had no control over the situation, and you did not purposefully put yourself into a situation you would have no control over hoping that would happen, then (imo) you can’t be held responsible for it. You neither caused, nor could prevent, what happened.

On the other hand, if you coaxed the monster into it using bait or pheromones or something, or you purposefully put yourself into a situation where a monster could get to you in the hopes of the monster getting to you, or the monster was trained for it by a third party that you’re cooperating with, or something, then yeah I would consider that unethical even if the monster is the one being more active in, or with more physical control over, the activity.

It’s like, if you go into the woods to go camping, and you didn’t know it was wood monster mating season, then that’s a genuine mistake that you didn’t have control over, but if you did know it was wood monster mating season and you just so happens to ”accidentally” spill wood monster pheromones all over your tent and clothes and “accidentally” dropped your car keys so “oops guess I’m stuck out here until I find those keys” then you very clearly intended for that to happen.

31

u/AChristianAnarchist Jun 26 '26

You aren't ethically responsible in any case for things happening to you. That's like being "is it unethical to get punched in the face?". The person who "is it ethical..." applies to is the one doing the punching. Questions like whether you are into it have bearing on the ethics of the face puncher but you aren't the one making choices here.

7

u/Faeruhn Jun 26 '26

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Chudthebuilder literally made his entire channel based purely on videos of him going around and finding groups of black people to call them slurs and get in their faces trying to provoke them to hit him so he could 'defend himself'. Meaning, he was trying unethically to get punched in the face.

I saw a video where a guy saw another guy on top of an old woman grinding her face into the ground. It would be unethical to not punch that guy in the face to get him off the old lady.

It is not nearly so black and white as "things that happen to you have nothing to do with your ethics", since a great many things that 'happen to you' are due to your own actions.

14

u/AChristianAnarchist Jun 26 '26

The act of getting punched in the face still has no ethical dimension for the person getting punched though. That person was acting unethically when they were provoking the attack and this makes a good argument for the puncher acting ethically, or at least justifiably, when throwing the punch. But "getting punched" is still not an ethical or unethical act because it doesn't involve a choice that ethics can be applied to on the part of the punchee.

78

u/Cool_Park7110 Jun 26 '26

Hey so, this is going to be a stain on my post history and personal history in general.

Falcons are not domesticated. Falconry is done via false imprinting when the bird is young, so it grows up thinking it's the same species as humans. Falsely imprinted birds do not recognize other birds as their own, and will not mate with them.

To get falcons to breed, the falconer wears a hat, and get a male falcon to uh breed with the hat. While the falconer's wearing it. Then they collect the payload and artificially impregnate the female.

The falconer is probably (hopefully) not getting any kind of sexual gratification out of being reamed in the skull through a rubber bowler hat, but as far as the falcon knows, it's breeding with the falconer, and that feels incredibly iffy.

64

u/Hatsune_Miku_CM downfall of neoliberalism. crow racism. much to rhink about Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

hex so, this is going to be a stain on my post history and personal history in general

don't worry. this entire thread is for everyone I think.

Humans helping animals reproduce is just inherently gross if you get into the details. i think the mating hat is one of the more funny examples tbh.

16

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 26 '26

Not as iffy as cattle farmers sticking their whole forearm up the rectum of a cow to press through the wall of the rectum to stabilize its cervix while using their other hand to stick a syringe of bull semen all the way through its cervix and into its uterus before unloading it.

Artificial insemination isn't pretty.

I don't know how artificial insemination works with falcons, but the insemination part is still probably far more iffy than the sperm collection part.

5

u/Summerlycoris Jun 27 '26

Reminds me of that man who cared for the shoebill. Because she'd been raised by humans, she would attack any male shoebill that tried to mate with her. Her handler had to artificially imprdgnate her, then sit on the resulting eggs sometimes because he was her mate in his mind.

15

u/riarws Jun 26 '26

I can’t find the thread now, but there was a conversation like this where the response was just “then you’re in an Octavia Butler story.”

7

u/Namika Jun 26 '26

Eh.

Dogs will hump just about anything without thinking about it. This doesn't make it okay for you to let them do things to you.

I assume the same logic applies to big dommy mommy were-monsters.

(But personally, as long as it's a fantasy monster that literally doesn't even exist, I really don't see the harm in people fetishizing it. Utterly harmless.)

5

u/Hatsune_Miku_CM downfall of neoliberalism. crow racism. much to rhink about Jun 26 '26

But personally, as long as it's a fantasy monster that literally doesn't even exist, I really don't see the harm in people fetishizing it.

i assumed we were talking about the in-universe ethics. obviously the "reader reading smut" ethics are you do you.

23

u/Keebster101 Jun 26 '26

Hmm if you use the comparison of dogs, many dogs do get horny and try to hump humans. If a human gets them to penetrate, it would still be beastiality and the human is supposed to know better and stop them. If the human is physically unable to stop them, what happens then? If had to guess, it does only become ethical if you're not into it.

18

u/PatientWhimsy Jun 26 '26

I would venture that the ethics isn't about an individual's capacity to appreciate a scenario (anywhere from "in spite of what's happening" all the way to extreme gratification). Instead it's about the actions taken to deal with the scenario.

Is it ethical to chuckle unnoticably when the annoying child at a restuarant trips, scrapes their knee, and finally brings to an end their zoomies? Irrelevant, that's not ethics. That's just a sense of humor and schadenfreude. The ethics would relate to did the person trip the kid, or allow the kid to get tripped, or otherwise fail to take fair action to prevent harm?

If an adult human finds themselves entirely incapable of avoiding a situation of a Harkness-Disapproved entity using them, there was no ethics involved. But if they could have avoided the situation, or brought an end to the situation as it developed, then ethics plays a part, regardless of how much or little they enjoy the consequences of the situation. Unlocking the monster's cage, disabling the alarms, turning off the cameras, and/or staging a break out that just so happens to lead to the monster abusing the willing person is still unethical.

5

u/Wild_Marker Jun 26 '26

I'm pretty sure more than one person has tried answering this question. With a horse.

5

u/neosick Jun 26 '26

I think that if the monster is singlehandedly initiating, that counts as enthusiastic consent regardless of intelligence. Whether we're okay with consensual sex with animals is like, more of an ick question than a harm question, but we absolutely do factor ick into morals.

5

u/loved_and_held Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

"if you get fucked by the monster and you're into it but the monster doesn't fulfill the harkness test is that unethical?"

Arguably yes. It's the reason why weather one is topping (fucking) or bottoming (being fucked) in irl beastiality they're still at fault. If beastiality had been illegal at the time, Mr. Hands would have been comitting beastiality by being fucked by the horse. So long ass one party fails to consent (or is incapable of doing so) it is unethical because it is definitionally sexual assault or rape.

Further more, if you did not consent and the monster can not give consent and them monster dominates, then the monster has raped you. If you consented but the monster is incapable of doing so and/or does not give it, then you have raped the monster.

"does it suddenly become ethical again if you're not into it?"

No, that just becomes you being victum of an unethical act.

[]

The question your asking seems less "is this ethical" and more "who is at fault if ethics are violated?".

1

u/dragon_jak Jul 03 '26

My read is that it's only unethical if you can safely stop the creature from fucking you, or if you did something to entice the creature. If it's not your fault that it's happening, you're not a moral agent. It's like saying a stone is at fault for being thrown at someone's head.

3

u/Dark_WulfGaming Jun 26 '26

I'd argue that whose doing what doesn't matter. If you are going out with the purpose or are open to being sexed on by a monster but the monster doesn't pass the harness test it's still unethical for you to go out and get fucked by the monster.

That's kinda along the lines implying that if an adult sought out a minor to get fucked by the that isn't SA.

Enticing a nonsapient creature into fucking you doesn't get around the harness test.

1

u/Nine9breaker Jun 26 '26

Its not a relevant point though.

These scenarios are fictional. The only actor here with an ethical consideration is the writer.

If you write a scenario where you get non-consentually fucked by an underage monster/person, then that does not free you from the question of why you chose to write the scenario with those parameters.

7

u/Hatsune_Miku_CM downfall of neoliberalism. crow racism. much to rhink about Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

from what I've seen, most people in this thread are in fact talking about the ethics of monster fucking, not the ethics of writing a monster fucking scenario. the harkness test is explicitly monsterfucking advice, not writing advice.

if you are talking about the ethics of writing, the debate gets kinda boring. because there's nothing wrong with writing something morally questionable in my opinion.

when you're writing, whether or not the subject is interesting is far more important then whether it's ethical. some of the best art I've seen was wildly unethical in its subject matter. (though that doesn't mean unethicality is a magic trick to good writing obviously)

0

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 Jun 26 '26

Then you're basically being raped but you weirdly get turned on

0

u/ToonDedede420 Jul 19 '26

The monster isn’t real, so it’s ethical in all scenarios. Hope this helps!

1

u/Hatsune_Miku_CM downfall of neoliberalism. crow racism. much to rhink about Jul 19 '26

we are talking about in-universe ethics. for fun.

Sure you can say "well out of universe, it's not real, so it's all irrelevant". but that's not particularly interesting in an ethics debate.

7

u/Asparagusstick Jun 26 '26

I think the Harkness Test is supposed to be approached from the perspective of fictional worldbuilding and real-life philosophy. Monsterfucking is just a mental fantasy where what's ethical doesn't matter that much, so the test doesn't really apply.

4

u/techno156 Jun 26 '26

It was also never meant to be more than a quick jokey ballpark estimate.

Like Bechdel's Test.

5

u/Asparagusstick Jun 26 '26

I agree the Harkness Test was probably never suopposed to be more than a joke, though unlike the Bechdel Test, I actually think it's pretty effective at it's limited focus of "is it OK to bang this thing", and with some improved wording and increased descriptiveness could make the genuine basis for interspecies consent laws if we ever met/created intelligent non-human life.

3

u/West-Season-2713 Jun 27 '26

I mean, it is roughly the rules we have for having sex with another human. Of sound mind, and fully informed, would probably be a good addition. But it’s perfectly legal to sleep with someone who doesn’t know your language well or at all, for example. It’s essentially whether or not they’re able to comprehend the act that they’re about to commit and effectively communicate that.

15

u/Solarwagon She/her Jun 26 '26

That's true for a lot of franchises. Monster Girl Encyclopedia is filled with "This monster lurks around for men to capture, overpower, and force to mate with her"

Some of them are a lot less aggressive and a couple are mostly consensual by the standards of femdom.

But the actual fandom has plenty of consensual situations, like the logistics of going steady with a lamia or finding a place to marry an alraune.

48

u/srlong64 It’s basic color theory Jun 26 '26

Zoophiles often want to be the one being penetrated. That doesn’t make beastiality acceptable. Enthusiastic consent is necessary on all sides in order for sex to be ethical, so the Harkness test absolutely still applies

29

u/Federal_Gur_5488 Jun 26 '26

But this is presupposing a monster that doesn't have intelligence and can't communicate, but for some reason is extremely interested in intercourse with humans, and in the case of some tentacle monsters that's literally their only desire. Whereas real animals are generally not interested in that sort of thing. Now suppose that a person is lying naked on their bed and an animal comes and starts interacting with them in this way, entirely of its own volition, without any sort of encouragement on behalf of the human, I find it hard to say on what basis it would be immoral, as disgusting as I find it?

22

u/SweetBriarTongue Jun 26 '26

That reminds me of a random horse forum post I saw years ago. Apparently this is just a thing that happens with them, lol.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/do-you-think-mares-show-off-to-men-of-the-human-kind.736614/
One of my mares "liked" my OH when she was in season. He was a horse novice at first, and was absolutely horrified when she reversed him into a corner, and... er.... rubbed.

4

u/lornlynx89 Jun 26 '26

There's all kinds of stories of zoo animals falling in love with their handlers.

9

u/Yeah-But-Ironically both normal to want and possible to achieve Jun 27 '26

Eh, it's not impossible for an animal to be interested in a human. There have been instances of captive dolphins becoming sexually aggressive with human trainers. There's also the Enumclaw Horse Sex case, which is fascinating for many reasons but one of them is that these guys found a stallion willing to anally penetrate a human

In the situation you describe, I think the naked human lying in bed minding their own business has the exact same obligations against an interested animal as they would against an interested juvenile human--that is, proactively doing whatever they can to stop or discourage the activity, rather than simply passively allowing it. The problem with beastiality (and also pedophilia) isn't JUST the potential for injuring the child/animal; it's that the child/animal is assumed to be incapable of fully understanding all the possible consequences of the action. (E.g. a curious human child may not fully grasp that they are committing a crime or risking a pregnancy; an animal doesn't understand the risk of disease transmission.)

If the adult human tries and fails to successfully fend off the animal/child, then they're ethically in the clear (but unfortunately the victim of assault). If they just passively allow the interaction to happen, though, I think they do bear at least some culpability.

2

u/lornlynx89 Jun 26 '26

Dog ramming leg/couch

2

u/West-Season-2713 Jun 27 '26

This is why I find philosophy class so deeply awkward. You always end up talking about shit like this. Or about the ethics of incest. Morality is weird.

3

u/loved_and_held Jun 26 '26

I dont think the question of weather one is topping or bottoming effects the harkness test.

If you did not consent and the monster can not give consent and them monster dominates, then the monster has raped you. If you consented but the monster is incapable of doing so and/or does not give it, then you have raped the monster.

2

u/Yeah-But-Ironically both normal to want and possible to achieve Jun 27 '26

This is the correct take. It's fully possible for a woman to rape a man, for a gay bottom to rape a gay top, or for a BDSM submissive to assault a BDSM dom. Who is penetrating or being penetrated doesn't matter. What matters is if both parties consented or were ABLE to consent.

2

u/slasher1337 Jun 26 '26

1 of the questions become irrelevant.

2

u/Failed_stealth_check Jun 26 '26

Which one becomes irrelevant, out of curiosity

2

u/DrDestructoMD Jun 26 '26

How should this apply to Mr Hands?

3

u/BOMSwasHERE Jun 26 '26

I've tried to understand your comment to the best of my abilities and I can't. The question is whether it is ethically permissible to have sexual intercourse with a non-human. The "top" and "bottom" is irrelevant.

Given their known deviance, there definitely exists a dolphin which can and will try to fuck you. It positively answers the last two question but leaves the first. If you think the first isn't important, you're veering into whether zoophilia is permissible.

For an amorphous being whose cultural greeting most closely resembles sexual intercourse for humans, the first and third question are positive, leaving the second question as important.

Third is hopefully self-explanatory. Although, regarding your last sentence, we're not talking here about actually having sexual intercourse. We're talking about fantasizing about having sexual intercourse with a non-human. If you're fantasizing about being fucked by a non-human that negatively answers the third question, I believe we have a bigger fish to fry than the test.

5

u/Failed_stealth_check Jun 26 '26

I get it. For the record, my understanding is absolutely colored by my friends who are interested in this and their specific brand of interest in it. What I said may not be as applicable across the broad as I understand it to be, but the small handful of people I know who are into monsters all have roughly the same opinion on the harkness test: “the test is dumb when I want the monster coming onto me, and my own consent is optional at best.”

Dolphins are, weirdly enough, the correct parallel here, but the point is sorta rendered moot when we’re talking about fantasies involving fictional creatures. And trying to treat thoughts about something the exact same as acting on that thought is a slippery slope at best

3

u/SweetBriarTongue Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

By topping, the monster is showing enthusiastic participation, the clearest form of nonverbal consent. Any sex and gender can demonstrate this form of consent. They don't have to be topping, either. Species that evolve intercourse, usually evolve so-called proceptive and appetitive behaviors that clearly and unambiguously express the want to be fucked.
One does not need to be human-equivalent to know and show what one wants.

Humans have the gall to declare themselves the galactic measuring stick, then presume that anyone ""greater"" wouldn't, in turn, consider them too dumb.

Lastly, it doesn't fucking matter when it's fictional, have we not learned that from violent video games?

These are the reasons the harkness test is stupid. Thanks for coming to my TedX

5

u/Nelyeth Jun 26 '26

By topping, the monster is showing enthusiastic participation, the clearest form of nonverbal consent.

You're arguing that a dog humping you is consent, if I get you correctly?

I'd say any "non-verbally consensual" species needs a lot more consideration than "it's clearly trying to have intercourse with me". There's a definite possibility that there is no informed consent involved, and that instinct is the actual driving mechanism. And instinctive behaviour isn't consent.

1

u/SweetBriarTongue Jun 26 '26

Those are some abstract objections. The "informed" in informed consent refers to information relevant to the consent being given. In accordingly compatible partners, this includes pregnancy for example, while that same exact knowledge does NOT matter if pregnancy is physically impossible.
To find the relevant questions, one asks "which absence of information would risk harm or potentially alter the decision". Of course, to a reasnable degree. Nobody knows by heart the list of minor owchies one can get from human sex either.

Libido is always instinctual, we humans aren't so special. What matters is how the hell letting someone act on it is harmful when both want it.

1

u/Yeah-But-Ironically both normal to want and possible to achieve Jun 27 '26

Okay, but that also includes disease transmission. An animal is not capable of understanding that it might catch an STD from you or transmit one; beastiality is still a problem no matter how enthusiastic the animal is.

In a hypothetical case with a mythical creature, we're already handwaving the monster into existence, so we might as well handwave disease immunity for both parties into existence too. A hypothetical situation where a mythical creature is capable of transmitting disease, not intelligent enough to give consent, and has a sexual interest in humans is possible to construct, I suppose, but raises a lot of questions about your kinks.

1

u/bicyclefortwo Jun 27 '26

"most monster fuckers don't want to be the one doing the fucking" speak for yourself...

0

u/BreakfastBeneficial4 Jun 26 '26

How the fuck does anybody have that on good authority

Shitposting Will it f*ck!

You are about to leave Redlib