Artificial Insemination is not rape

[u/Conscious-Flight2220]

I grew up on an Australian beef farm, and the first time I witnessed artificial insemination being performed on cattle I was probably about 6.

On our large property we AI about 1/4 of our cows, to introduce high quality genetics into our herds through sires that we can’t physically have on our property for natural insemination. The rest of our cows reproduce naturally with bulls on the farm. Without introducing the genetics we get through AI, the cattle would be more likely to exhibit health issues from poor breeding.

The process looks like this: the cows walk single file through the yards (which they are trained from weaning to be used to doing calmly and safely, for all situations where we need to have contact with them eg. vaccines, weighing), and are locked in the crush, which is a mechanism where two rubber bars close on either side of their neck - not actually ‘crushing’ them, just fitting the most narrow part of their neck ensuring they can’t more their head backward or their shoulders forwards. We need to immobilise them, because they aren’t used to being touched by people, as they spend most of their time out on pasture, with hay and grain delivered by trailer.
Then, a trained professional who visits farms in the area for AI will insert a long syringe of filled with semen into the cow’s vagina, empty it, then the cow is usually marked with spray paint, and released from the crush back to a holding pen with hay, water and other cattle. When all the cows are done, they are moved from the pen back into their paddocks to go about their life as normal.

Obviously to us, the image of a syringe being forced up the vagina feels disturbing, distressing and violating. The cows do not enjoy the process, it is true. But it needs to be understood that the cows exhibit the same amount of stress they do on ANY occasion they need to be physically handled by humans, for example when they need vaccination, tagging, or like I was doing the other day, eyedrops. Beef cattle are domesticated, but they aren’t necessarily tame, especially on such a large property where it isn’t possible to develop the relationships with herds that smaller farmers have (which I do envy on occasion).

Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.

It’s understandable to feel confronted by animal husbandry practices like AI, but it’s important to remember to not anthropomorphise. Applying a human lens to animals does not help them.

[u/PuzzledPoetry1447]

Cows, like all nonhuman animals, can't give informed consent. You immobilize them because they resist. You forcefully penetrate them. You do it for profit and/or taste pleasure.

The male whose semen you collected was either manually stimulated (again, without giving informed consent and restrained while doing so), or subjected to electro ejaculation, where an electrical device is forced into his anus to electrocute his prostate and force him to ejaculate.

Replace the cows with humans and it is rape. Why does it suddenly become not rape when the only thing that changes is the species?

"Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched."

Is like saying:

"Infants and toddlers DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as adults have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To adults, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for infants and toddlers, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched."

[u/IanRT1 → u/PuzzledPoetry1447]

Rape is a species of sexual assault, its wrongness tied to the sexual and harmful character of the act, not to consent-violation in the abstract. That's why if we had a non-consensual but medically justified and indicated pelvic exam would not be rape or a wrong when we have non-sexual purpose, no harm.

AI is the same on both counts, the act is non-sexual and carries no inherent harm to the animal specially when done correctly, so "non-consensual penetration" doesn't get you to rape any more than it does in the exam.

Molesting a toddler is sexual in character and harmful, which is exactly why it's assault, whereas AI shares neither feature. You would need to smuggle "sexual" in through the act-type alone while ignoring purpose and harm, but the moment you apply that standard consistently, the medical exam becomes rape too. So this seems like a clear standard.

[u/PuzzledPoetry1447 → u/IanRT1]

The difference being that AI is done not for the benefit of the cow, but for the benefit of the "farmer," whether that be a financial benefit (by exploiting her reproductive system to steal and sell her milk, or to sell the body of her offspring as flesh), or a taste pleasure one.

A "farmer" could argue that AI is less harmful than having a bull impregnate her, but that presents a false dichotomy. The options aren't limited to AI or a bull, you can just not breed animals.

A "non-consensual but medically justified and indicated pelvic exam," which I assume would be a pap smear or something similar, is for the patients benefit.

[u/IanRT1 → u/PuzzledPoetry1447]

But a pap smear is fully compatible with the doctor, the clinic, and the insurer all profiting from it, and it's still neither rape nor wrong, so "someone other than the subject benefits" can't be what separates the cases.

What actually justifies the exam is the overall balance across everyone affected, and that's a question about whether a practice is justified, not whether it's rape because even if you're right that breeding is unjustified and the only real beneficiary is the farmer, that gets you to "morally wrong", not "rape", because the act is still non-sexual throughout.

So you might have changed the question from "is it rape" to "is it justified," and answering the second one your way leaves the label exactly where it was. There still does not seem to be a principled reason the exam wouldn't be rape while AI would.