Does it matter if animals cannot consent to sex with humans?

Yes, for now.

Animals fuck for reproduction and pleasure, so do humans. fucking is fucking.

Well, animals do it mainly to reproduce. Very few animals actually have sexual intercourse for pure pleasure.

I would assume they do fell pleasure or else there would be alot less of it, though there basic need to reproduce over rides the pleasure. However they could just be horney mother fuckers.

Its entirely possible that when I say natural law i mean something different. I never had a formal education in philosophy so most of my terms are self imposed based on my own thoughts and rational.

Anyway, your assumption here seem predetermined on the major difference between humans and other species, which you call organic automatons. I can't seem to rationalise this position as an argument but maybe im not trying hard enough, the only possiblility I can see is a religious background for this framework which seem to me to be somewhat useless. Humans are organic automatons as well, just slightly more complex as I said. By virtue of this complexity we can dominate the planet.

But the crux of my argument is that although we can rationalise and morally idjudicate what we feel to be right and wrong we have no right to enforce this upon other species as to do so we would need to hear their views and opinions and rationalisation on the subject. They are, through no active fault of their own, incapable of doing so. Therefore we must seek to establish what the aparent rules of natural interaction's are between species.

The only way I can see of doing this is observing the interactions of nature and attempting to establish a set of laws that seem to be obeyed at the level of those species. We see different species killing each other for food and provision, therefore it is morally justified for us to do so as well. We do not see different species kill for pure pleasure, therefore we should not kill other species for pure pleasure.

I can feel that i'm not explaining this very well but I guess the question is if an advanced alien civilisation appeared which we could not communicate with, would you think it just that they rape humans for pure pleasure because they rationalise us as being inferior and so they can do what they like? Or would it seem more just for them to examine the way in which we interact with each other and other species that are below us and base their interaction on that knowledge?

Well, since I can't know your mind, I'll stick to using the terms as they are properly defined unless otherwise specified.

We are not organic automatons. We are people. Persons have agency, intellect, and a mind. Animals do not. Only people are capable of understanding and creating morality, and only people can be bound by it.

They are not worthy of an opinion. They are heaps of matter assembled into another form. There is no difference between a machine made to be like an animal and an animal. You cannot, however, make a machine of a person without creating an entirely new and separate person. We are more than the sum of our constituent parts, they are not.

We have no reason to pity sand, or trees, or the atmosphere. Too, we have no reason to pity or empathize with animals. Matter, no matter the form it is in, is still just matter.

Why? You haven't explained why natural interaction is good, you've just said we don't have the right to force morality on animals (which is a silly idea in itself). It's a simple truth that natural interaction has no intrinsic value. Unless you're submitting to some kind of omnipotent moral authority.

Again, natural interaction is worthless. Other species are not people, so other species do not deserve any consideration beyond that we'd give to plants, rocks, or air. If killing animals can produce pure pleasure for a person and have no negative effects on other people, then there is no reason not to do it.

They would be people just as much as us, and so would have to respect at least the most basic of rights that are derived from personhood.

More just? No. More practical? Certainly.

I had hoped i'd explained what I meant using that term in the proceeding parts. If you wish I could use a new term, though based on your responses they are relatively synonymous.

Why? Provide proof that this is so. Animals, I would argue are either substantially more than their constituent parts or human beings are also simply more complex organic automatons. Simply put I would initially put forward two arguments for this:

1) Humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with, at some point all living life on this planet, it being the only life we are aware of. The hypothetical nature of abiogenisis aside we should at least agree all things are made of energy. At different stages and methods of "order" if you want to use that term. Now certainly we are more advanced in terms of mental capacity than the other life inhabiting this rock but likewise animals display a much greater degree of "order" than simpler organisations of energy. (sand, oxygen etc)

2) Animals display a large amount of traits which would lead us to conclude via observation that they are prima facie what we term sentient at least. Sapience, would require them to display judgment, which I believe they do, and considerable intellect and internal thought processing. These two are harder to clarify, certainly on these levels they cannot compete with humanity, hence we are a step above them. As such it would be concludable that they can form a very crude form of proto-morality which would govern their behaviour similar to humans.

3) In response to us all being organic automatons. Human behaviour is governed by a brain made of the same constituent parts as a cows brain or a dogs brain. Ours is somewhat more complicated circutry yes but its nowhere near the step from current computers to say for example the minds from Iain M. Banks "the culture" novels. Our behaviour can be predicted as well as an animals can, if only requiring more complex methods.

Natural interactions are valuable because it is how we observe that "stage" of "order" to behave. Without developing the ability to communicate with animals this is all we have to observe the morality that s constructed at that level. Once we have observed that that is how interspecies relations work at that level it comes down to whether or not you think humanity by virtue of chance mutation has the moral justification to impose our own morallity upon them.

In defference to this clarification I will change my question. If an advanced alien civilisation, which by benifit of mutation beyond its control had evolved a for of supra-sapience, would they be justified in inficting torture and horror on us that we cannot consent to directly to them, but it is observable that we do not act in such a manner towards other sapient species?

Doing it fore pleasure an feeling pleasure are two totally different things. Pigs, dolphins and couple of primates do it fore pleasure. On the other hand all mammals feel pleasure while having sex.

I was wrong about pigs but primates do. Chimps for example.

His point was that pleasure has a big part in sex, not that they do it for pleasure. You said that they don't feel pleasure which they do, and that's what I was responding to.

Fucked up again. Its bonobos not chimps.

From a PBS article:
Though very close in genetic relationship and virtually next-door neighbors, chimpanzees and a less-well-known species called bonobos in Zaire are socially poles apart. Only identified as a species separate from chimps in 1929, bonobos intrigue biologists with their easygoing ways, sexual equality, female bonding, and zeal for recreational sex.

Am I the only one here just a little creep out by this thread?

Yes, yes you are my good sir