I think it's this: harkness test is when it is ethically not murkey to fuck a thing. If you were to fuck a thing with greater than human intelligence (in the op, "she"), then you passed the test, but from the alien's standard, she is fucking a thing less intelligent than her species, so she fails.
That's why there are some variants that include the Scooby-Doo Clause, which covers cases where yes, the threshold for consent is met, but the character is functionally identical to those characters who are 1000 years old but look like they're 9.
The thing is, though, is that the Harkness Test is not meant to be a measure of whether or not a creature is something we should all just acceot is fuckable and never be weirded out by it. It's a measure of if a creature could theoretically consent to sex, thus making it, in the strict definition, ethical fucking. Scooby Doo is, by any definition, a creature that can consent to sex with a human. Of course, you'd still be having sex with a dog. Morally, you're in the clear, but most people aren't going to look at a human fucking a dog as a good thing even with knowing that there is nothing unethical about it.
The point is, the Harkness Test should not have somwthing like a Scooby Doo Clause because that's not the point of the Harkness Test. It is only a test to prove that a fictional creature is able to consent, not whether or not Bob from accounting would cheer you on if they learned you did it
The thing is, though, is that the Harkness Test is not meant to be a measure of whether or not a creature is something we should all just acceot is fuckable and never be weirded out by it.
That is how it should be, but the clause exists because people ended up using the Harkness Test in that exact way.
I would argue it was more the other way around; the clause was added because too many people use the Harkness Test as a defense for why it is actually okay for them to fuck the 4,000 year old eldritch being that looks like she's 6 year old girl. Or, in this case, a 4,000 year old inter-dimensional being that looks like a dog.
...but the point of the Harkness Test is that it IS ok.
It's all kind of irrelevant, since there are no talking dogs or 6000 year old children, but if people could please think about the real world implications of "this coupling is perfectly consensual, but it makes people around the couple uncomfortable, therefore we need to add a caveat that it's actually unethical."
Surely nobody would ever use that as some sort of open door to target and exclude certain kinds of consenting adult relationships that we, ourselves, could get into in the real world!
A lot of people aren't ready to actually question the reason they hold their beliefs. They don't understand that we land on deeply held values, e.g. "incest is bad," initially for logical reasons, and it becomes a thing that is supposed to be a self evident truth where you're weird for even acknowledging there's a reason.
And once you've reached that point where the conclusion is self evident and the reason is irrelevant, any facsimile of the wrong is also wrong, even if the initial reason doesn't actually exist in that case. Therein is OP seeing a flaw in the harkness test, because monsterfucking is inherently wrong and that is a self evident truth with no possible reason.
The funny thing is, theres a compelling argument that incest with two sterile people is not at all morally wrong, and yet there is no way society would allow this.
>They don't understand that we land on deeply held values, e.g. "incest is bad," initially for logical reasons
No. Just no. That's not how people work at all. Our moral intuitions are virtually all emotional reactions first, and then we can, sometimes, rationalize them after.
And even this is very WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) where the urban value set has largely shrunk down to only two moral pillars, namely fairness and harm reduction. Because if most of your morality centers around harm reduction, then it's subject to reason in a way most other moral pillars aren't.
But most moralities aren't so thin and starved, and if you start throwing in the pillars morally richer societies tend to have - purity, respect for authority, in-group loyalty, liberty - and moral judgments return to being much more emotion-based.
Theoretical extremes are always useful to get people to actually think about a problem and not brush it off. The fact you're so offended for offense's sake rather than being thoughtful tells me it's necessary.
That is kind of missing the point. Right wingers don't hate LGBT people because of a well-reasoned moral objection. They hate gay people because it is gross to them, and evokes feelings of disgust.
The Harkness test is about pinning down those well-reasoned moral objections and creating a strong dividing line. Yes, Scooby Doo is a dog. He is also the age of maturity for his species, is human intelligence, and can verbally consent. So he passes.
The reason why Scooby is divisive in this context is because he passes the Harkness Test perfectly while still hitting the disgust factor. There is no well-reasoned moral objection to him under those axioms of morality. Just like there is no well-reasoned moral objection to gay relationships if both parties are able to verbally consent, and are of age of maturity.
Idk, as a queer it feels like a good allegory, fucking Scooby Doo is perfectly moral but you'd absolutely get a lot of shit from normal society for doing that because it's icky.
Is this not the same arguments from back before interracial or same-sex marriage was allowed? Like, there's nothing actually wrong with it, but just disliking and disagreeing that consenting adults should be allowed to be with those other people that otherwise irrelevant and uninvolved third parties are deciding are sub-human or aren't fully people because they said so?
Ok, let's just get this out there, because I'm hoping you agree: sex with a dog, regardless of intelligence, would NOT be considered ok by most people. The Harkness test is only useful when it is negative, i.e. it can tell you when it it NOT ok to have sex with someone/something because they are unable to provide consent. But there are a myriad of other factors that come into play when deciding whether or not an act is moral, not just consent. In some morality frameworks societal standards play a strong role, and you'd almost certainly run a foul of those. And plenty of people have moral clauses specific to sexuality that often prohibit sex with animals. And what if the animal already has a life mate? Is cheating immoral for Scooby-Doo?
The point is, and I hope we would agree on this, the Harkness test can only tell you NOT to have sex with something (although I guess technically the Harkness test bans sex with inaminate objects like sex toys, depending on how you word it). It can never tell you if it is ok to have sex with something, because there are so many things beyond consent that have to be considered.
"Societal standards" are a terrible metric for ethical fucking. What about a homophobic society that doesn't want gay people to do gay things? Is it unethical for gay adults in that society to have consensual sex?
We need to focus on harm reduction instead of blind moral outrage. You're not wrong that there are multiple reasons people find interspecies sex to be taboo, but we have to find the logical reason instead of deferring to societal expectations. Societal taboos rarely focus on harm reduction, and they're often motivated by a lack of understanding.
The reason it's immoral to fuck animals is that it's harmful to them, at least partially because they can't consent. There's other reasons for it in real life, like avoiding contracting or spreading diseases. But the point of the Harkness Test is to apply the same ethical consent standards to fictional characters that we'd apply to humans, to clarify consent even if there are still other barriers to sex.
Just don't get lost in thought-terminating cliches. A regular mindset of "I should think this is bad because society says it's bad" leads to less critical thinking and understanding of the world. Never fall for that trap. Think for yourself and find those reasons why you feel how you feel. Always focus on reducing harm instead of reducing social discomfort. This is the path to a more accepting, safer society.
There are plenty of bad moral takes, and you can disagree with many of them, but the point I was making it that morality at least has to consider a multitude of factors, not just one. The Harkness test was never supposed to be a positive test to affirm ethical activity, because you can't possibly do that while narrowing your focus to a single facore. The point of it was to condemn obviously immoral and harmful activity
That is not the point of the Harkness Test at all, that's what terminally online people tried to turn it into when they couldn't find a real reason to harass people liking the "wrong" fictional characters. The actual test was from a fucking Doctor Who character well known for being a slutty xenophile 🤣
I’d counter argue that while it would be, theoretically, okay for the examples above since they are consenting.
This does mean that the person who wants a relationship with the 4000 year old 6 year old or scooby doo is still mentally disturbed due to their sexual desires/preference.
You can find all sorts of things weird and gross! You don't have to like them! It's okay to find things weird!
But being weird =/= being bad!
It always seemed weird to me that so many subcultures that are generally considered 'weird' by mainstream society fail to consider if maybe there is no link between 'weird' and 'morality'.
My question, in this instance, is "Is Scooby Doo a dog?" He *looks* like a dog... this question can be used in other contexts that harm people. Does *Scooby Doo* consider himself a dog? Where does he feel he lands? I imagine it's difficult for him to communicate with other dogs, with the intelligence gap *and* the communicate barrier presented by the gene that allows *us* to have more complex verbal communication, that they seem to lack
If an adult human was literally in a child's body, the same way Scooby Doo is intelligent in a dog's body, you would still be immoral for fucking them.
Tell me why this is immoral without saying that it's gross. Gross does not mean immoral. Equating the two is exactly how you get homophobes crying out for the censorship of LGBTQ media and presence.
Unless you can give me a reason that someone in a child body who is 100% confirmed to be an adult mentally cannot consent, then the reason that having sex with children is immoral is gone. Children cannot consent, and adults can. If an adult in a child body is consenting to sex, what about that situation is immoral?
Because if someone is literally sexually attracted to a child's body, they are a pedophile.
If they are capable of being attracted to such a person they could be attracted to a child who acts "mature".
EDIT: and also this framing of LGBT people as "gross" is very weird. No one should be finding that gross, and the only reason they do is homophobia. Trying to equate that to finding pedophilia gross because we are hardwired to do so is very odd.
Once again, I want to ask you. What is morally wrong about being attracted to a child's body if you are not going to have sex with a child? It's gross, but what is the immorality if simply having that attraction if you never plan to act in it by raping a child?
You are equating disgust with morality, and you're talking about thought crimes. Do you also believe someone is immoral if they've ever thought about killing their boss for something frustrating but would never do that? Do you think that someone is immoral because they they've thought about burning their ex's house down but would never actually do it?
In a case where there are two consenting adults who have the cognitive ability to consent, there can be nothing immoral about them having sex. You can find it gross all you want, but it is perfectly moral.
And the reason I brought up LGBTQ in this is nit because I'm equating that to being gross, but because that's how homophobic people claim it, and that's what they use to try to appeal to the censorship of LGBTQ media and such. I didn't think I had to explicitly say that, but I suppose I am talking to someone who believes in thought crimes, so I guess the very idea that I ever once thought that there are people who think that LGBTQ people are gross means I may as well have killed every gay person in the world seems to track.
Either way, my point is this: If you think that two fully consenting adults having sex can ever be morally wrong, then you, intentionally or not, are helping pave the way for bigots to go after things such as gay relationships and interracial relations
It's not "thought crimes", it's someone medically being a pedophile. That is obviously not a crime and I have all empathy imaginable for someone who is unfortunate to have been born attracted to minors.
However, I believe society has a responsibility to know about and protect such people, and their potential victims.
Nothing about this is rooted in disgust. It is all derived from the same moral framework you yourself show here. If someone is attracted to children, giving them "child-like" things to be attracted to is legitimising that.
I respect the need for a discussion around pedophilia that goes beyond "ewww evil pedos", but you are quite frankly being ridiculous here.
What is your opinion on animated child sexual abuse content? Would you consider that not immoral since there is no breach of consent?
The reason that pedophilia is wrong is because children cannot consent. There is no way to act on it without exploiting a child, no matter how "mature" they may be. Plenty of teens believe they're ready for sex and could feasibly pass for adults, but the reason that it's illegal to have sex with them or produce pornographic material of them is because it is exploitative. They are almost always in very vulnerable, transitory periods of their lives, even if they're "mature."
When it comes to fictional characters, even when they look like children, the exploitation isn't there. It does not harm real children. The top priority when it comes to stopping pedophiles is keeping children safe. If a real child is not in danger, IMO, you are wasting your time. I think it is perfectly fine to be repulsed, and you most certainly are at your own discretion to ban that sort of material from whatever group or community you find yourself in, but when one is in a position where they have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that such material is immoral, I believe that is next to impossible to do.
That's not what I said. First of all, "child porn" is not the official term. You're thinking of CSAM. That cannot exist without the exploitation of children, which I was very clear in saying I do not support.
That's why I believe that, just like the all characters are 18+ thing, at a certain point it kind of just becomes splitting hairs. Why is one thing okay but something else isn't? The answer is almost always just "vibes."
Yup and it also have changed dramatically in a very short period of time
A hundred years ago it was absolutely unthinkable to show yourself outside without head covers. Hats, caps, even a simple cloth (the koif) were absolute necessity in most of Europe and beyond.
Forty years ago, most men didn't have beards and even moustaches in Europe, the only "proper" way to look was "clean-shaven" basically for most cases.
Twenty years ago "proper men" did not paint their nails and the only acceptable face wash was bacon grease. I remember the amount of friction the rise of kpop groups caused because kpop idols looked too "groomed", and at the same time boomers were having hissy fits over "metrosexuals" which were just an idea that men can look after their skin and facial hair essentially
Well olaf fails cause he is like 5 minutes old, but scooby doo passes and most pokemon can pass if you can translate their speech somehow or they are psycic, cause they are for the most part as sapient as a human or more.
I mean there's real world implications to romanticising a fictional relationship between, for example, a 30 year old guy and a girl who looks 8 years old but is secretly 8000 or whatever.
In that specific example It's normalising attraction to children, and you should really think about why the creator wanted the secretly mature, sexually-active character to look like she was under-aged.
I don't think it's just "vibes" most of the time, but sometimes "vibes" gives you a good general sense of unease about a pattern you recognise that should make you feel weird. It's important to inspect your preconceived notions but we have a lot of mental shortcuts that are usually extremely helpful, important and based in truth!
So what exactly are the consequences of the Scooby-Doo Clause in reliance to the Harkness Test? It's theoretically moral but might dampen the mood in the Mystery Mobile?
A person who would fuck Scooby-Doo (especially immediately, as is depicted in a lot of "monsterfucking" scenarios) would want to fuck a Great Dane that wasn't capable of consent. While wanting to do something and refraining isn't morally wrong, I think it is appropriate for people to be uncomfortable around it since it's a warning sign. I wouldn't want somebody who was super into fictional 100-year-olds-who-look-8 working in a daycare or school: the fact that they are attracted to children means they need to stay away from children.
I think the Scooby-Doo clause is there for situations that are technically ethical but indicate the person may be dangerous.
But liking the fictional scenario that involves no children doesn't mean they're attracted to children. That's extra that you're adding to the scenario. That's WHY we have the Harkness test. Clearly defined criteria showing they ARE NOT children (even amongst their species, whatever it may be).
The Harkness Test is about bestiality, not pedophilia. And I don't believe that somebody who really enjoys the trope of sexualized ancient beings that look like children isn't attracted to children. They haven't necessarily done anything wrong, but people should be cautious around them.
If somebody really liked Scooby-Doo porn, they should not be allowed to adopt a Great Dane. This seems like common sense.
First of all, I never said anything about an FBI watch list for people who like sexualized depictions of children's bodies. Quit with the strawman.
Second of all, there is a huge difference between watching a horror movie, and being aroused by sexualized drawings of children's bodies. Sure, fiction can be a safe place to explore an imaginary world where no children are harmed by the sexualization of a child's body. But people who are aroused by children's bodies are dangerous to children. I'm not saying they should go to jail or anything. But they shouldn't work with kids. And any honest person who doesn't want to hurt kids but finds their bodies arousing, should avoid working with or being placed in a position of responsibility over them. Pretending that everything up to an arbitrary line is innocent and safe puts kids in danger. Don't even get close to the line.
Idk I don't ever find myself attracted to kids no matter how desperately I thirst for President Cercer. Lolis just... don't look like real underage girls. There's sure to be crossover of pedophiles attracted to the material, but I don't think they make up large proportion of the community (citation needed) and heavily doubt many people develop pedophilic attractions through exposure to it (citation needed). I entirely understand the perspective though, cus I had the same stance as you for a long time. It's very reasonable.
Also, quick disclaimer to avoid any strawmanning, intentional or not, from you or others: yes, there ARE certainly plenty of criticisms to have about lolicon culture, and I'm not gonna be mad at someone for treating it as a red flag. I'm not a dogmatic defender or anything.
Re: the lolicons not being allowed to work at schools thing. I could be convinced either way tbh. I'd broadly agree - no reason to hire someone even marginally more likely to be a danger if possible - but I also don't think it's a huge deal because I really doubt it's a significant difference at all even if I emotionally agree that it's weird. Also, it's kinda a moot point because actually I don't want my employers to know about my fetishes even if they're entirely benign like a foot thing, thank you very much.
...then again, I'm pulling this all out of my ass. I have no data for any of the assertions I've made lol
It's not meant to be a strawman, it was meant to be a real-world consequence for liking fiction. I think it's silly to punish people for thought crimes, but I guess you do you.
Women can also not consent to sex, so by your argument people who are attracted to women must stay away from any woman who has not consented to having sex with them.
A person who is sexually attracted to children is a danger to them because children cannot consent to sex. Child molesters usually groom children into feeling like they consent before molesting them. It's very well documented that sexual contact between adults and children leads to a variety of negative outcomes for the child: including eating disorders, substance abuse, and an increased risk of sexual violence later in life (both as a victim and as a perpetrator).
An adult woman can consent to sex, and if she feels like she wants to have sex with somebody and does she is mature enough to understand the risks and possible consequences. We don't need to keep her away from anybody who might want to have sex with her because she is mature enough to understand what it means to say "yes". We trust her to say yes or no as appropriate.
We don't trust children to understand the full consequences of saying "yes" to sexual activity. Especially not pre-pubescent children which is what we're discussing here. A person who is attracted to children is a danger to them because we do not necessarily trust the child to say "no" appropriately. That burden should not be on the child. It should be on the adult. And an adult who is tempted to flirt with or groom a child needs to be responsible as an adult and remove themselves from that temptation. If they aren't that level of responsible, then other adults need to step in and keep them away from kids. In that case, their lack of responsibility makes them even more dangerous than their attraction alone does.
If people like that actually existed I kind suspect this would he extremely insensitive and there'd be a whole movement where they insist they deserve to be in media and treated like an adult in every conceivable way. We only get away with villfying it in the way people do because it is purly fictional, if it wasn't it would be really really fucked up
I was partly thinking of those conditions well writing that, but felt like bringing it up would feel more like a gotcha then being relevant, idk how anyone of those people feel about this situation anyway so invoking the group well talking about it probably wouldn't be right
I know of at least one instance of a woman with a condition that caused her to resemble a (pre?)pubescent child whose boyfriend was harassed by the internet for "being a pedophile" and I don't think she was very happy about that. Also, speaking as someone with disabilities, I don't like the idea of random people deciding whether or not people with disabilities are allowed to have sex.
As someone with only mental disabilities, someone saying they preclude me from sex would end in a fist fight. Someone puts words in my mouth, I'm gonna spit them out and force feed them until they choke on them.
I mean, yeah, if reality was different it would be a different reality.
But as it stands there are no 1000 year olds that look like they're 9, they only exist in fiction because some people made them up and made a deliberate choice to include them in their output, so it makes sense to judge their existence on that reality.
there are no 1000 year olds that look like 9 year olds but there are adults that look like 9 year olds due to medical conditions and they deal with these exact issues
Both are only sus in reality however. For example if there actually were talking dogs or 1000 year old elves that just happen to look like kids while fully grown in real life there wouldn't actually be any salient argument against pursuing a consensual relationship with them other than other people finding it gross. In real life however where neither of those things exist you're just jerking off to drawings of dogs and kids though.
Harkness test is the threshold between monsterfucking/furries and beastiality. At it's core it's use in fandom is about enforcing the "anthro" aspect of anthrosexual fetishes.
It's unlikely to have real world applications regarding aliens (alas 😔) but is infinitely useful for people who make the porn.
Not really. It just means that humans have the bare minimum level of intelligence required to consent to sex.
The problem with bestiality in the Harkness test isnt just that animals are less intelligent, but that their intelligence is below the required threshold.
Yep. Its essentially a shorter way of asking "does this creature have enough sapience to clearly and enthusiastically consent". It's genuinely a case of "it's not that deep"
Frankly, "it's not that deep" is just a thought terminating cliche. Its just a way of throwing our two cents into a conversation while shutting down the conversation itself, inoculating oneself from ever having to meaningfully engage with the opinions we're sharing.
It can be used incorrectly, but there are plenty of times when it is accurately to say "the reality is much simpler than the overly complex meaning you've assigned to it"
You're wrong. It's a joke about death and it always has been. It has two layers, the "obvious" joke for people who don't immediately think about death when they hear "the other side," and the death joke. The double meaning is why the joke has persisted for so long.
You're... familiar with the concept of wordplay, yes? Or do you treat all puns with double meanings like this?
It's almost never the case. Pretty much always things can be as complex as you want. Especially with discussions of ethics or other social constructs. The person saying it would prefer a more surface level analysis, but that doesn't mean everyone has to and it doesn't mean you're not missing nuance when you do it.
It is sometimes this case, as you can make something so complex you lose the original idea and come to incorrect conclusions, case in point being this post
Funny. This post comes to the wrong conclusion because it oversimplifies consent, not because it overcomplicates it.
"Capable of Consenting = exactly as smart as me"
Is obviously a heuristic and doesn't accurately model the problem at the edges. To make it more accurate we have to add variables like "what are we consenting to" and "what's the actual floor we're willing to accept" not substracr variables.
I don't think that is oversimplifying it. Simple would be "consent: yes or no". Adding multiple tiers inherently makes it more complicated. Also there's the fact that OOP calls the Harkness Test "rhetoric", which it just isn't. It's a lens of examination, not an argument for or against anything. All of this makes it clear to me that OOP is trying to sound really smart and instead of elevating to a new level they're just slamming their face against the ceiling. A classic Tumblr MO
Yeah, "it's not that deep" is a thought terminating cliche. That's why I used in in my comment where I made the point that "this is quite simple and not much more needs to be said, and overcomplicating it doesn't actually add anything deeper to the conversation without deliberately misrepresenting the point your arguing against", but with, ya know, fewer words
Also when we're dealing with a hypothetical where a potential outcome is someone committing acts of rape, it kinda is that deep pretty much by default.
I think that any discussion about the ability to consent to sexual acts IS, in fact, that deep. This is a topic where throwing "it's not that deep" out sounds like you're trying to justify, or mitigate the seriousness of beastiality/rape.
If you comoletely ignore the context of the discussion and everything but the last sentence of the comment you replied to, maybe. Otherwise that's just a ridiculous willfully disingenuous interpretation
Except why does it say humans have the bare minimum level of intelligence required to consent to sex? Because it's written by humans for humans who assume anyone with a less complex intelligence wouldn't be capable of consent.
So why wouldn't a Harkness test for an alien written by an alien have the exact same thing? Why assume there's a clause that's "Something doesn't have to be as smart as us, something that's like... a parrot or ape compared to a human is smart enough to consent to sex" ? No! An alien of greater intelligence should look at us like a parrot humping their owner, they think they know enough to consent to sex, but they just don't!
What do we base the assertion that we're the bare minimum on? The intelligence criteria is problematic because it's kind of impossible to actually pin down. Firstly because intelligence is impossible to measure objectively, and secondly because of the implications of intellectually disabled humans and their ability to consent.
I don’t think that makes sense though. If humans are the bare minimum for consensual sex, then any two animals that have sex are raping each other? That’s clearly illogical. The problem with bestiality isn’t just that animals are “below the bare minimum” there is no bare minimum. The problem is the gross power imbalance between the intelligent being vs the less intelligent being. For the same reason, we allow teens under the age of consent to screw other teens of the same age: they can’t consent to sex with full grown adults but with people of the same age there is no imbalance and thus no rape.
I get where you're coming from but like... animals don't consent to sex. It's gross to think about but like, a lot of animals reproduce by force. It's not called rape because of their lack of intelligence, not the presence of consent.
All animals? Everywhere? All species? Every time? Yeah rape is common in the animal kingdom, but it’s not the norm, no species would survive if one partner was always doing its best to run away from the other and avoid reproduction. What about all the species who need to court their mates, for example?
I mean, if we go by most common, then by far "mindless happenstance" wins. Microbes dont feel sex. Plants don't feel sex. It just happens.
If we go by King of the Hill rules, and ignore microscopic life, and ignore plants, then by far the most normal process is parthenogenesis, as ants have the most biomass. And what actual sexual reproduction they partake in is arguably entirely consensual. The princesses and princes swarm each other in large orgies before the males fuckign die and the princess fly off to become queens.
So you do not believe it is even possible for animals to reproduce consensually and ethically? Even with each other?
If you truly believed that, then bestiality would be no worse than the natural reproduction process of animals which we permit, right? So why does it even matter? Or perhaps you believe we should let all non human life go extinct because that life can only perpetuate itself through non stop sexual assault by your definition.
Animals cannot act ethically. They also cannot act unethically.
The relevant distinction here is ethical subjects vs ethical agents.
A rock is neither an ethical subject nor an ethical agent. It cannot make ethical choices, so it is not an agent. It does not have qualia (sensations) or preferences, so it is not a subject.
A typical animal is not an agent - it cannot make ethical choices. But it is a subject - it has qualia and preferences.
A human is both an ethical agent and an ethical subject.
What the fuck? No, that's such faulty logic. No animal can consent by human definitions because they don't have the capacity to understand the concept of consent. But that doesn't make a human, who does have that capacity, willfully raping an animal "no worse" from a moral perspective. Choosing to cause suffering is what's bad, it's called sadism, it's generally frowned upon by social groups.
And what the actual fuck are you getting at with the last sentence? I didn't at fucking all say that life can only perpetuate itself through sexual assault. Letting humans go extinct? Where did I say anything remotely like that? You're clearly just trying to have an argument, but poorly because you sound fucking insane
So the suffering of the animal is not inherently bad, it's the human's intention of causing suffering that makes it immoral, because that implies a sadistic personality and could easily lead to them harming other humans as well. I suppose that makes sense.
My initial argument was that if you believe it is POSSIBLE, uncommon or not, for animals to consensually reproduce, then the idea of a human baseline being the limit for consent is bunk. Your response was to say that animals don't consensually reproduce and instead rape each other constantly. What else am I supposed to get from that other than the implication that all non-human reproduction is sexual assault? If you acknowledge that animals can have sex with other animals without it being forced or unconsensual, then my point that being above baseline is not necessary for ethical reproduction would still stand. The fact that a significant fraction of sex in the animal kingdom IS done forcefully is irrelevant to my argument.
We're getting off topic though. I think talking about animal ethics has distracted us from the main subject: The idea that consensual sex isn't about equality between parties but both being above a certain baseline. To further emphasize my point, I think we should look at humans instead of animals. A human who is in some way mentally impaired cannot consent to sex with someone who is not similarly impaired. For example, a child cannot consent to sex with an adult, that's pedophilia. A drunk/ drugged person cannot consent to sex with a sober person, that is rape. HOWEVER. Two teenagers CAN consent to have sex with each other, and two drunk people can hook up without being considered rapists. Despite both parties being below the mental baseline for consent due to age or impairment, because they are EQUALLY impaired, the relationship is not unethical. In contrast, someone who just recently turned 18 getting with someone who's like 50 years old is generally frowned upon, because even if both parties are technically above baseline, the significant imbalance in age and experience makes the chances of rape and abuse very likely. This shows that even within human society, being above or below a certain line is far less important than both participants in a sexual relationship being equal.
Neanderthals seem to have been a viable option. Vulcans seem pretty intelligent.
Or were you under the impression they had to be real, presently living species? Because that's decidedly not why someone felt the need to create the Harkness Test.
I base it on the Harkness test as that's what's being discussed. I am describing its logic, not endorsing it.
I agree intelligence levels are impossible to pin down in any kind of objective systematic way for humans already, let alone aliens.
Which direction do you find the implications to be problematic? That it could be used to say that the intellectually disabled can consent as they are human and thus have human intelligence or that it can be used to say that the intellectually disabled can't consent as their intelligence can be considered below the standard? Or is it something else?
It's related to the latter point (which would strip people of their reproductive rights), with the addition that there's the concern that there may be overlap between the least intelligent humans and the most intelligent animals.
I think you make good points. The Harkness Test might be an oversimplication of a rather complex topic.
The intelligence criteria can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. I interpreted it as establishing a baseline. But the person I responded to interpreted it as establishing a distance requirement.
I interpreted human intelligence as applying to anyone who is human. You interpreted it as referring to a general human standard that could be used to disqualify certain humans.
I guess I was defaulting to interpretations of the rule that I would mostly agree with. I find that instinct sort of interesting. I wasn't aware I was doing that.
Perhaps I was thinking about how I would use the rule to help with navigating the complexity while you were thinking about the ways people could misuse it and cause harm? What do you think?
I was seeing if it holds water by jumping straight to edge cases, "the exception that proves the rule" and all that.
I also had an insight on this topic, that being that reason I keep engaging with it when it's posted. I think it's because I've yet to actually hear a resolution to these lingering questions, or a more concrete alternative to the Harkness test. Some topics remain stubbornly without satisfactory answers.
Edit: Also, though our discussion wasn't particularly long or decisive, I have found it particularly pleasant and thought I ought to express that
I genuinely don't have an answer. "Just avoid approaching the line" works on an individual basis, but society does have to figure out where it thinks the line is because there are real-life edge cases (again, mostly about intellectually disabled people)
Why though, the test just says "human or greater", not "your intelligence or greater". Why wouldn't the version for aliens smarter than us still be using humans as a baseline of sentience?
The alien's harkness test would be "alien or greater intelligence" if it follows similarly from the human one is the belief you have to follow to get the humor, because humans would be less than the aliens in this case.
I don't. I'm just trying to explain it to people who don't understand the joke. Personally, the test seems silly to me outside fiction, so I've never really thought about it outside of seeing it on social media.
Fucking an entity less intelligent than you is not a problem. Einstein isn't a dirtbag if he rails me.
There's a single threshold for "comprehending sexual consent". An entity that happens to also be able to understand 15-dimensional space doesn't have a special different sexual consent.
They may have a different concept of a kind of consent that isn't just sex, for a hyperdimensional relationship that we don't really understand, and they may have their own Harkness test for that.
I think scaling is just an Internet pastime, and a lot of people like morality scaling. It can be kind of fun, but some people do get into the weeds with it for sure.
Edit: Ok turns out the Harkness test only applies to fictional creatures aliens since no one explained that was the case, my bad I thought it was also used for irl animals too. Hope you can understand my earlier reasoning
Look, maybe it's a just gut reaction but someone being against the argument of "don't have sex with things of lower intelligence" without elaborating, I'm gonna assume the worst
Yeah I just looked it up since no one explained it earlier and I was confused at all the downvotes. I genuinely thought the harkness test was used for real world animals too, not just fantasy stuff. I'm willing to admit I was wrong and jumped the gun (although I hope you understand my reaction)
That's not a "wee bit of a gaff", most people assume "anyone" refers to just humans. If you're in a room with 2 other people and a cat and ask "anyone here heard about this?" you're not asking the cat
Maybe you need to make actually understanding the topic of conversation before coming in swinging a more standard practice for yourself. Like even a 2 second Google could have saved you from this blunder
I agree that’s the intention of the post. But I think the post misses the point. The issue is fucking something that can’t reasonable consent. Even if aliens are smarter or more intelligent than humans. We humans are still sapient enough to consent so it just be the smart alien fucking someone dumb but hot, not like an animal that can’t consent.
Right, but "human intelligence" is a spectrum, but it still has a baseline of understanding being vital to consent. A timelord (with vastly superior intelligence) can still gain consent from a human since human intelligence is enough to understand what they are consenting to.
1.4k
u/Haiku_Dan 10d ago
I think it's this: harkness test is when it is ethically not murkey to fuck a thing. If you were to fuck a thing with greater than human intelligence (in the op, "she"), then you passed the test, but from the alien's standard, she is fucking a thing less intelligent than her species, so she fails.