VeggieBoards banner

Leather Shoes...Moral or Monster?

5K views 77 replies 22 participants last post by  ruffian 
#1 ·
Hi there, guys.

I am a vegan and have been for many years. I decided to go vegan for ethical reasons, but having become a fitness-freak over the last couple of years, I can also attest to its brilliant health benefits!
However, I am also autistic, which means that I suffer from physical sensitivity, balance issues and low muscle tone - all of which add up to one thing: I need good shoes.
I wear Puma trainers for my weightlifting and other exercise, and during the day I live in my beat-up grey Converse, but having been born with slightly mishapen feet (bummer!) I now have really sore toes and calloused skin. What I need is a pair of New Balance trainers for everyday wear. The problem is, the ones that are best for my tootsies happen to be...yes. Suede. Dead cow's butt. What can I do?
Having my disability means that I am sensitive to a lot of textures, and it is nightmare city trying to find a suitable pair of shoes - but these New Balance ones fit all the bills. They are quite simply perfect. But...dead cow's ass. It breaks my heart.
Should I compromise my ethics to help my disability? I have searched all of the vegan shoe options and they do not suit my needs at all. So, to conclude, is it OK to compromise footwear ethics when you have autism and special needs? Or does that make me a hypocritical monster? Advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks a lot, guys!
Pixie xxx
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Pixie:

I don't consider you a monster if your physical condition means that you require leather shoes. The way I look at it, the fact that you are a dietary vegan means that many hundreds of animals won't be slaughtered because of your food choices. Don't beat yourself up because of this. Think of how much animal suffering would be avoided if everyone on the planet followed your lead!
 
#8 ·
Thank you for commenting! And thanks awfully for your advice. I think it's true that I am avoiding a great deal of animal suffering, and besides - if they have my shoe of choice in store already (which they do, I checked) then it will only be given to another buyer anyway. And besides - most shoes are glued with animal by-products. It must be nigh on impossible to get a totally vegan shoe!
 
#3 ·
If you are 100% convinced that you have explored every possible option and the only possible shoe for you is one with suede, then so be it. I'm concerned, though, that once you buy them you will dread wearing them, so do be sure you've done your homework and examined every possible alternative. You may even want to send an email to the company and ask if they make this style in other man-made materials. Good luck!
 
#4 ·
Well, there are alternatives out there, but they tend to be rather expensive, however you'll feel it's worth every cent, since it won't be animal skin. Usually you do contribute to animal friendly shops as well, so it's a win-win for everyone.
Another option is to buy all you need on second hand stores. All the leather I've bought is second hand. Now that I'm a vegan, I'm trying to save up for synthetic alternatives that look and feel like leather, while wearing my old stuff until that day. Doesn't make me happy to wear it, but at least I did not contributed to the killing of another cow, which it would have been the case if I had got my jacket on a regular shop.

I think it's always a compromise when you are at the beginning.
 
#11 ·
Thanks for your advice and support!
Sadly, I am only a poor student and any really quality animal-free shoes are waaaaay above budget. I can't afford anything fancy at all - which is ironic, because it costs more to produce leather! Also, buying second hand is impossible with my disability - if the shoe has already been worn, it will have slight 'imprints' off the previous wearer, thus making the fit uncomfortable (honestly, autistic people are shoe-fitting nightmares!). I think it will have to be a sad, unfortunate compromise.
 
#5 ·
I'm another who feels that buying things that really have an impact on how you feel and perform, as well as last for years, isn't a disqualifier for being vegan. When I tore a ligament in my ankle I went crazy trying to find shoes I could walk in properly-I came back to the original leather sauconys I'd tried because they were far superior to my gait. I continued to look and try and correct my problems, but in the meantime being without pain and the ability to walk unimpared was priceless. Same with vitamin D. WHen I found I was very deficient despite taking D2, I got D3 to get me to the level I needed. Now I now I can look to vegan D3 to sustain a good level.
I would look to second hand shops which aren't consignment shops. Stores like Goodwill that donate to charitable causes.

Your comments on physical sensitivities interest me because I've felt I'm on the autistic spectrum since Ive heard of it. From childhood and teens I was diagnosed as schizophrenic, but have gone beyond that from my 20's on. I'm extremely --xenophobic? just don't feel part of anything. certainly not social, and have learned to "pattern" behavior so I get along just fine. Better with people I don't know, because I never want the kinds of closeness most 'friendships' require. I never feel anyone gets me. Anyway, I'm also very sensitive to clothing, tempertures, my hair, itchiness..... it's been getting really bad lately. Shoes are a big problem, and while I now wear Saucony that aren't leather, I can feel what its like to want comfort.

New Balance is known for making non-leather shoes. If you know which style is right, I suggest calling the companies number and asking for help selecting a similair style in non leather
 
#6 ·
In case you haven't searched the following site yet, try it out!

http://vegan8.me/vegan-athletic-shoes/vegan-athletic-shoes-2015/

VERY comprehensive list of vegan shoes from all around the world. All of my vegan hiking and cycling shoes I had to order online because I needed something very specific and I am fortunate they all fit on my first go. I have had them for anywhere from 3 to 5 years now and all are very nice quality and still going strong. One of them I bought through Amazon.com for half the normal price and paid very little for. If you can find a specific brand of shoe that will work, see if they have it on Amazon.com and watch it on your wish list for prices to go down. Or try Ebay or something along those lines.

I do understand it can be a huge effort to find high quality not too expensive vegan shoes that fit correctly. For my Wicked Hemps and Kiowas, I did have to buy a shoe insert because I have very high arches (along with wide feet with a narrow heel) and didn't feel they provided enough arch support, but with the simple shoe inserts they work very well. I already have a few high top hikers on my wanted list from that list above. I just have to wait for that tax return. :) Best of luck!
 
#9 ·
In case you haven't searched the following site yet, try it out!

http://vegan8.me/vegan-athletic-shoes/vegan-athletic-shoes-2015/

VERY comprehensive list of vegan shoes from all around the world. All of my vegan hiking and cycling shoes I had to order online because I needed something very specific and I am fortunate they all fit on my first go. I have had them for anywhere from 3 to 5 years now and all are very nice quality and still going strong. One of them I bought through Amazon.com for half the normal price and paid very little for. If you can find a specific brand of shoe that will work, see if they have it on Amazon.com and watch it on your wish list for prices to go down. Or try Ebay or something along those lines.

I do understand it can be a huge effort to find high quality not too expensive vegan shoes that fit correctly. For my Wicked Hemps and Kiowas, I did have to buy a shoe insert because I have very high arches (along with wide feet with a narrow heel) and didn't feel they provided enough arch support, but with the simple shoe inserts they work very well. I already have a few high top hikers on my wanted list from that list above. I just have to wait for that tax return.
Best of luck!
Wow! Thanks so much for your in depth reply - much appreciated! I checked out the site you suggested, but unfortunately most of the stuff on there looks unsuitable and is also way out of my price range (I'm just a poor student at the moment, haha!). It looks as if I'm going to have to make a sad compromise. It sucks having the disability I do, because it makes wearing anything but 'perfect' footwear completely out of the question.
 
#7 ·
I relate to your question and am trying to find new vegan shoes as well right now. I don't have a car and walk 2500-3000 miles a year. I need a 9.5 extra wide walking shoe and had been using New Balance 812, but those are now discontinued. Those didn't have leather, though they probably had animal glue (New Balance couldn't verify). They've replaced it with the 813, which does have leather. Sneakers, basketball shoes, running shoes.... are all designed for different uses. If I use a shoe that isn't designed for walking, or doesn't fit correctly, my feet will blister and walking becomes very difficult.

Finding a replacement high-quality extra-wide walking shoe has been tough. I'm going to try New Balance 665 because it doesn't have leather (though it probably has animal glue). It costs almost half as much as the 812's did, so I worry about inferior quality. If that doesn't work, then I'm not sure what my back up plan is, other than hope some other company puts out the type of shoe I need. I may need to get the 813's even though I hate the idea.

I don't expect to live a perfect vegan life. I try to live a better life, making vegan decisions where I can. There are lots of choices when it comes to something like food, but very few when it comes to something like shoes in specific sizes for specific purposes.
 
#12 ·
Wow, thank you for your exceptional response! Your issues with socialising, xenophobia, etc really resonate with me. And the schizophrenia? My dad (who is autistic too) was also diagnosed with schizophrenia many years ago. The symptoms often co-manifest and I think they can be easily confused.
Message me if you fancy an autism/mental-health related chat! :)

As to the shoes, I think I will have to go with the suede. It is sad, but when your feet belong to a slightly eccentric body, and your body belongs to an even more eccentric mind, then I guess compromises are OK. It's about doing the best you can, and knowing that you aren't a bad person.

Thanks again for your awesome response - please do feel free to message me, as I said!
 
#13 ·
You can never be %100 that you lead a zero animal lifestyle no matter how sure you think you are.
The animals get slaughtered for the flesh eaters.
While welding I have to wear my old..old suede jacket. I've tried 3 times to weld without it on and 3 times I have caught fire.
A cowhide can be taken from an animal the died of natural causes,the flesh cant be used.
We all do our bit otherwise we wouldn't be here :)

Have fun ...Frame.
 
#15 · (Edited)
When I used to ride a motorscooter, I was unable (at that time) to find non-leather riding gloves to protect my hands in case of a fall. I went ahead and bought the gloves.

I was able to find a non-leather, impact- and abrasion-resistant riding jacket. These are called "textile jackets" in the motorcycle world.

I miss my scooter! 90 miles to the gallon! My wife asked me to stop riding, and I can't blame her; I wouldn't want her to ride.

 
#16 ·
Your not a monster even if you didn't NEED the shoes it's still perfectly fine to wear them if your ok with it like nobody else can make up your mind for you and nobody will mind if your shoes aren't vegan as It is your choice to be a vegan so u can choose what you wear on your feet
 
#17 ·
and nobody will mind if your shoes aren't vegan
Go tell that to the omnivores! They will be the first to point out the anomaly.

It will happen so be prepared for comments from people about the fact you wear animal skin but don't eat animal flesh.

Having said that, I can appreciate the difficulties you face re: sensory issues. Others, however, who are trying to knock your food choices will latch on to it and use it as a stick to beat you with :serious: Just be prepared for it x
 
#18 ·
I've never had an omnivore point out an anomaly, even though I'm full of obvious ones including leather. Though I identify as vegetarian, omnivores are always the ones who think of me as vegan because I don't eat meat, dairy or egg content. After the first or second time I stop correcting them. If they think of me as vegan they stop offering me cake and ice cream, and stop asking me if I could please bring egg salad to the potluck.
 
#19 ·
I've never had an omnivore point out an anomaly, even though I'm full of obvious ones including leather.
Maybe I got your share of the comments then Joan. I've never had so many people interested in my fashion choices since I turned vegan, almost like they want to catch me out on something.

I even had someone say "are those leather?" when I was clearly wearing canvas shoes! Still not entirely sure if they were joking or just extremely thick.
 
#30 ·
It's rare to drive by a dairy farm (or bike or walk) and not see at least a few calves. And you gotta wonder where all those cows come from year after year. They can't be the same ones I saw ten years ago producing the same amount of milk? My guess is they are female offspring.
 
#36 ·
I am a vegan as well for 2 years already but I still can not reject leather ware. I think leather boots is the best protection for our feet. though I feel truly sorry for animals I think shoes like this are more practical in winter time.
These VEGAN boots look far more practical for winter-
http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n:7141123011,k:Vegan Snow Boots&page=1
I don't take with people having need to buy leather-like in work uniforms, or buying used if money is an issue, or when special sizing is a problem. If you don't have a real NEED, and still buy leather, you're not vegan.
 
#39 ·
Okay, sorry to return to the milk debate but perhaps I wasn't being clear either. The person in question thought that cows are born producing milk, aren't impregnated to produce it and their udders would literally explode without being milked.

Spontaneous lactation does indeed occur in humans, though I think it's fairly rare and sometimes there is a medical reason for it. An unmilked dairy cow will likely get mastitis and possibly a life-threatening infection. They won't, however, blow up like a hand grenade.

In future I will take extra care when discussing this and acknowledge the fact mammals sometimes lactate spontaneously but in the dairy industry (which is what I was discussing with him) this isn't actually the case.
 
#42 ·
IMO, using the term "rape" for artificial insemination is going to make anyone who has lived around nonhuman animals think that the speaker is speaking from an overly emotional POV. (And I say this as someone who is pretty damn emotional about nonhuman animals.)

The fact is, an awful lot of the sexual activity among animals of the same species is non consensual. For example, although most bird species are not physically capable of rape because of the nonpenetrative nature of the male's sexual organs, there are some notable exceptions, of which ducks are one. Drakes are extreme rapists, so much so that, at certain times of the year, I have to separate the drakes out from the girls, because they rape so prolifically that they injure the girls, and it's not unusual for a female duck to be raped to death. Rape/attempted rape is also not unusual among dogs and cats, even when everyone has been spayed/neutered.

So,while I am not an apologist for artificial insemination (or of breeding of any kind), I think that most people turn the auditory dial to the "this person is an overly emotional dingbat who thinks that animal life is some sort of Disney romp" when people call it "rape", because it is much less brutal than what many/most of these females would be subjected to without human intervention. It's not that different from calling it "sodomy" when the vet takes the anal temperature of one of my cats - a procedure that is also done without the consent of the cat, and to which the cat objects.
 
#43 · (Edited)
Artificial insemination without consent is rape, whether most people approve of the term or not, and regardless of what goes on between animals in the wild. I don't understand how its being arguably less brutal than intraspecies assault makes it any less of an assault. On the contrary, since humans understand the concept of consent, we can be held fully accountable for sexual assault against non-human animals in a way that the animals themselves cannot.

As far as the difference between taking your dog's temperature rectally and artificially inseminating a cow, pretend for a moment that we aren't talking about non-human animals but about a human woman who is incapable of consent due to physical or mental limitations. Would you consider it sexual assault for a doctor to take her temperature rectally if there was no other way of taking her temperature? Would you consider it sexual assault for a farmer to manually inject semen into her with the intention of selling her milk for profit? If an act is sexual assault for a human, it is sexual assault for a cow, too.
 
#44 · (Edited)
It never makes us look logical and balanced when we take human constructs like rape and overlay them onto other species. Human women are capable of giving and withholding consent at any point during the monthly cycles. And if our non-consent is overridden by coercion, that's clearly rape. But with nonhuman mammals, if the female isn't in season she isn't receptive, and he's not interested anyway. Males in the wild rarely attempt to mate with females out of season, because the "in-season" scents the females give off trigger the males' arousal. To that one extent, we're making invalid comparisons. If you've witnessed a female cat or dog in season one can only conclude she "wants" to be mated with. She will make that as clear as any organism possibly can. Does a cow experience a sex drive as an urge when she's in season? With the act of insemination does she experience sexual relief? Would she really experience insemination as we would experience a rape? Could we prove it?

I think one valuable line of research into animal husbandry/animal abuse might be to take baseline measurements of an animal at equilibrium, at homeostasis: at peace, not under stress. What is the breathing rate like at that point, what is the heart rate and blood pressure, what hormones are in the bloodstream, what is the behavior like. And then take the same measurements once the animal has been exposed to treatment we expect would cause it stress. How far do those numbers jump, and how long does it take for the animal to regain its equilibrium? A cow forcibly separated from her calf, an inseminated female of any "food animal" species, a lamb or piglet castrated without anesthetic, a calf being branded with a hot iron, and so forth. We know we ourselves would detest and resent any of that treatment, but how do they react to it, and how long does the stressed condition persist? Are cows at the feedlot as miserable as we would be, or are they as content as they are placid? Have they gone nose-blind to all that manure and urine? Or are cattle in feedlots persistently stressed compared to cattle in pasture?

If it turns out animals can pretty much roll with the lot they've been dealt, food ethicicists could concentrate more on how the animals' health is being harmed, and on the environmental and public health aspects of CAFO environments rather than how "miserable they must be." I think this line of reasoning could resonate with more people on the fence than do appeals to pure human emotion. We all know we'd hate to be a cow with a human frame of reference, enduring the treatment they endure, but that's really beside the point. And I'm not talking about flagrant abuses like stomping and kicking and maiming, but about the activities that are part of standard, acknowledged procedure in animal agriculture. When we point to a treatment as being indisputably inhumane, it would be good to have metrics to back up our opinions.
 
#49 · (Edited)
But with nonhuman mammals, if the female isn't in season she isn't receptive, and it's just not gonna happen.
While I agree with some of your post, I have to take issue with this. Not all species are alike in their sexual behaviors. For instance, most species of ducks mate for life, but drakes do "rape" females who are not their mates. This has been prevalent duck behavior for so long that the female duck anatomy has actually evolved so that a female duck will almost never be "impregnated" through coerced sex, but her eggs will be inseminated through consensual sex with her mate. See this article for a brief description of this phenomenon: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/duck_sex_even_more_screwed_human_sex

With respect to chickens, roosters do attempt to mount hens against their will, on a regular basis. Because their sexual relations are not penetrative (completely different reproductive organs than ducks), there are no internal injuries to the females.

And, as I said above, anyone who has lived a long time with dogs and/or cats and has been observant of their behavior will have seen firsthand that just because a dog or cat has been neutered at a young age will not necessarily mean that an individual will not attempt to forcibly mount another individual, also spayed/neutered. Sexual urges are strong, and, depending on the individual, survive early neutering.
 
#45 ·
^Those sound like the studies ---I can't think of her name but she's known for making changes how cafos operate, and known for being autisic-

But anyway, it still comes down to unnecessary exploitation for human greed
 
#46 · (Edited)
Sounds like you're thinking of Temple Grandin. I know her connection with making changes to slaughterhouse routines by changing the shape of the route the animals walked (curved instead of straight, not seeing what the animal directly ahead is walking into) so they'd be calmer and not set one another off. And yes, it does come down to unnecessary exploitation for human greed, but you have to be pretty far along the path already, to be receptive to that concept. I was talking about specific narratives the animal rights community is attached to (e.g., insemination=rape), and why some of them might not be so effective. I was talking strategy for communicating things that can be observed and measured, not arguing against giving up animal products.
 
#47 ·
I have never seen any compelling evidence to suggest that animals don't experience pain and fear in the way that we do. I don't know of any good reason to assume that they don't. They have all the necessary hardware: a central nervous system, a complex brain. There have been studies like the ones you describe, most notably a study on cognitive bias in calves which revealed that they view the world pessimistically after experiencing the trauma of dehorning and separation from their mothers. There are studies highlighting cows' ability to successfully solve puzzles, such as one experiment where they learned to navigate a maze by following a noise. By all accounts, cows are intelligent creatures with emotional lives.
 
#48 · (Edited)
Not disputing that cows are sentient, social animals capable of suffering! Under the circumstances, no intelligent steer has reason to be anything but pessimistic. I'm more skeptical that a cow's experience of insemination is analogous to a woman's experience of rape. I think the ability to regain equilibrium after trauma is a highly adaptive trait, the way it is in the emotionally healthiest, most resilient of humans. Considering the scope of the CAFO situation, I'd hope that cattle in general, not just unusually resilient cattle, possess this trait, that the suffering they experience is more in the immediate aftermath of trauma than forever after the trauma. And that the day-to-day reality of CAFO life is not experienced as trauma. But one way or the other, I'd like to know. Are some of the studies you remember available on the 'net to look at?
 
#55 ·
That's interesting, because my viewpoint is almost exactly opposite yours. It's inconceivable to me that a feminist could not be outraged by the dairy industry. To me, an attempt to elevate human suffering over that of another betrays a true lack of proportion, a belief that OUR pain is somehow more pure or more deserving of attention simply because it's ours. I don't know precisely what it's like to be a dairy cow. I can never know, but when it comes to determining whether or not it's an act of sexual assault to forcibly impregnate a female who can't consent, I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution.
 
#56 ·
I don't know precisely what it's like to be a dairy cow. I can never know, but when it comes to determining whether or not it's an act of sexual assault to forcibly impregnate a female who can't consent, I think it's reasonable to err on the side of caution.
I did not come over to Vegan Support to argue otherwise, but to point to where I think tactical problems lie in using the insemination/rape analogy with the public. Have you had some success in turning feminist friends away from dairy with this rape line of rhetoric? I don't need proof or evidence; I'll just take your word for it. I admire cows, I just don't identify with them. They seem to take a lot of things in stride that I couldn't, which is why I don't imagine myself in their place. Never mind insemination: The whole being-a-cow thing lost me all the way back with having to stand around in the wind and the weather.
 
#57 · (Edited)
I don't have any feminist friends who AREN'T vegan or at least considering veganism, so it's hard to say. In the last few days, since posting the status I wrote in response to the #MilkTruth campaign, three people have contacted me for advice on cutting down on their milk consumption. I didn't use the word "rape" in that post, but I did stress the fact that dairy cows are forced to give birth to one calf a year and that half of those calves are killed for veal. I don't know what moves other people to drop dairy. I do know that, personally, the sexual exploitation of dairy was a big reason why I couldn't keep drinking it. I suppose that we all have our own motivations.

ETA: Having given it some thought, I think that a good analogy to use would be a child who is too young to harbour inhibitions or to feel shame, who has an underdeveloped brain and an inability to understand what's happening to her. I can't think of any circumstance where it would be even remotely acceptable for someone to manipulate her genitals in any way aside from necessary cleaning or medical procedures, even if she herself couldn't tell the difference. It doesn't seem to matter, ethically, that the victim understands what is happening. What matters is the intent, the purposeful abuse of power. Does that make sense?
 
#58 · (Edited)
Here's why to me the intent of the actor matters less than the effect of the action on the subject. Talk to any "good Christian dairyman," or beef rancher, or any religiously observant person who raises living beings for slaughter, and they say this: "Our relationship to animals is analogous to God's relationship to us. God has dominion over us, the way I have dominion over my cattle. God brings us into life, takes good care of us, and takes us out of life again. That's how I treat my animals; they're not people, they don't have souls, and they're not pets, but they deserve to be treated humanely, fed regularly, protected from predators and from the elements because that's what good stewards do." You might gag at the stench on a dairy farm (I trashed the clothes I'd worn last time I toured one), be horrified at some of what you see and hear, and you could point to many jaw-droopingly unpleasant practices, plus the fact that they raise animals to kill. However, that inseminator is not getting off sexually as would a rapist, but is working to bring new beings into life. A rapist acts with evil intent, against his upbringing and against his own conscience if he has one. Not so with the dairy farmers. Those guys are acting in good faith, bringing what they believe is a needed food commodity to the world.

I can try to re-find and post some papers on raising veal, and about keeping a small family dairy. Not because I endorse what they're doing, but because they are a reliable source of information about veal trends and insemination processes. People are a lot more candid when they're not busy defending themselves and what they do for a living.

The landscape is changing about numbers. You wrote of the "fact that half of those calves are killed for veal." Not so much these days, as I alluded to several posts ago. A dairy will keep only a few of the female calves as replacements for the ones that will be culled that year, so most of the female calves are destined for beef or veal like their brothers are. But anymore it's more for beef and less for veal. Fifteen to twenty percent of beef cattle were born to dairy cows and auctioned off (or sold directly to customers) as one-day-old calves. Then bottle-fed, then pastured, then the feedlot, then the slaughterhouse. Just like the calves born to beef cows, except for the bottle-feeding part. Veal producers today say they have a lot of competition from ranchers for those day-old dairy calves. Which changes our narrative as we explain why we object to the dairy industry, if we want to keep up with shifts in how that industry operates. That "fifteen to twenty percent" number is significant, because there are only about twenty percent as many cattle born at dairies as there are born on beef ranches. Which would indicate most of those day-old calves are going to ranches, not veal pens. What isn't changing of course is that pretty much every cow or steer born into the food system leaves this world by way of the slaughterhouse. But it does look like our narrative should adapt to incorporate recent trends.
 
#59 ·
I got the 50% figure directly from the website of the Veal Farmers' Association of Ontario, not from AR literature. Maybe it varies according to country. Either way, I don't see the difference between slaughtering an animal for meat immediately or a couple of years later. I don't understand why that would change anything. All cows are slaughtered young.

Whatever a farmer might say about his motivation for raising dairy cows, we all know-- as does he-- that his real motivation is profit. Milk is a business and it's quite literally cutthroat. I don't buy for a minute that picturesque scene of a humble, pious farmer tending to his animals with quiet respect. It's a lie that we tell ourselves to distract us from the reality that the vast, vast, vast majority of milk available for consumption comes from large, industrial dairy farms and that even the small family farms which remain exist for one purpose only: to make money.
 
#60 · (Edited)
First of all, yes. All cows are slaughtered young.

The point of that "good Shepherd/good steward" schpiel isn't to say these are wonderful people (to my mind genuinely pious does not necessarily equate to authentically good), but that they lack the evil intent of a rapist. And of course these dairymen are motivated by profit. That goes without saying. We're all trying to make money, but we also want to feel good about what we do. You're mistaken if you think dairy operators can't honestly believe they're contributing in a positive way to the needs of this world. I can disagree profoundly with them about the value of that contribution, but I can also take a farmer's word about what keeps him in that line of work. Dairy operators believe their product is wholesome. They eat cheese, and they feed milk to their own children. Anyway, the point of bringing up the schpiel goes right to intent. The rapist has no such positive schpiel. There are valid reasons why a rapist's intent is nearly always seen as evil and antisocial, whereas the inseminator's intent is nearly always seen as positive and pro-social. Please keep in mind that I brought this up because you pointed to intent as being more significant than effect in your inseminator/rape analogy.
 
#63 ·
The argument isn't at all off the mark, and I think you're displaying a very narrow view of what sexual assault looks like. Again, I'll list the scenarios involving human victims where your criteria isn't met: the molestation of young children (who are not self-conscious and have no social inhibitions about sex) or severely mentally disabled or unconscious victims (who may not even be aware that an assault is taking place). Perpetrators of sexual assault do NOT always experience sexual release, and in fact rape and sexual assault are less about sex and more about domination and the exercise of power. You keep bringing up the video of a cow yawning. I don't know if this is a real video or one you've invented, but I can guarantee that human victims of sexual assault can appear perfectly docile or blank during the attack. Victims can even sleep through it, or experience orgasm. The reactions and experiences of human sexual assault victims is varied, yet the assault is always an assault. Referring to the insemination of cows as a "veterinary procedure" is euphemistic in light of the fact that it is done at the expense of the cow's wellbeing, with the sole intention of exploiting her reproductive system for the profit of the one inseminating her. Is female genital mutilation simply a "medical procedure"? Furthermore, would the standard practices on a dairy farm be considered sexual assault if done to ANY human female, however docile, however unaware?

What, exactly, differentiates a non-human victim from a human one, aside from species? We've established that cows are sentient, that they are capable of experiencing pain and fear. I think we can agree that a victim is no less a victim for not understanding the implications of sexual assault (as with children) and that sexual assault does not necessarily need to be violent or cause physical injury (as it often doesn't). What, then, is so special about humans-- ALL humans, even babies and humans in a coma-- which makes us susceptible to sexual assault while non-human animals are not? I can't see any reasonable answer beyond pure speciesism.

My stance on this is based on reason, not simply emotion. To exclude the insemination of dairy cows from the range of possible abusive and exploitative sexual acts on the basis of the cows' lack of sexual inhibitions or psychological complexity is to exclude certain human victims, as well.
 
#64 · (Edited)
My view of sexual assault does require a perpetrator who is committing a sexual act for sexual gratification, whether or not the perpetrator actually ejaculates. That would exclude very, very few sexual assaults. And it would include a man sexually penetrating a cow, whether or not the cow minded or even noticed.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top