Cattle is low on the food chain, while humans are at the top. It makes sense for animals at the top of the food chain to be more selective with regard to sex because it's important for their offspring to be highly fit. Lower on the food chain, having the most fit offspring isn't as important, unless they can reliably be fit enough to always evade predators. Since illness and injury can always happen, it's more important to have many offspring than it is to have especially fit ones. Ergo more sex, and less selectivity with regard to partners.
Anyway, I'm not a biologist, and I haven't heard of any research on this topic. For all I know, what I just said is complete bullshit, but it seems to me to hold more water than blindly applying human morality to non-human animals.
If a cow doesn't struggle in a 'rape rack', how is that not consent then?
>There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech"
If that argument were valid, anyone that didn't resist during a gang rape because of fear of repercussion would be 'consenting'.
Also, there are plenty of species where sex is straight up violent. Projecting human sexual standards onto other animals is idiotic at best.
There is a difference between leaving a creature in open space with a herd around them, teeth and hooves available for "speech", and locking a creature to a rack where they are alone and powerless to dissuade penetration.