Poll: Consent - Is there a line?

[TheComedown]

There is no black or white. You ask people to turn a grey situation into a black and white one, when you yourself can't/won't do it.

Imagine a scale from 0 (No) to 100 (Yes). The area between those two values is entirely grey, but there is always a definitive range your opinion falls into. 0-49 = No, 50-100 = Yes.

I find it hard to believe you are actually so completely ambivalent about the issue that you're stuck on 49.5 ...

But as you said yourself that area is entirely grey. Using your example, you want us to put a single value out of 100 into a binary choice. Its not that simple again. It never will be that simple. Not to mention on a topic like this a single opinion cannot be reduced down to a single figure out of 100.

 

[Togs]

(EDIT= irrelevant rant is irrelevant)

 

[Custard_Angel]

SNIP

i don't know that just using the law as a guideline is appropriate, either, as in many places oral sex, anal sex, or even positions other than missionary are all illegal. otherwise, i agree in spirit with your statement.

OT: really, the issue here is more about who those people are, rather than what they're doing. as long as their outside lives aren't going to negatively impact those around them due to their sexual relationship, it is fine.

So... respect the laws of your country.

If you don't like it, move to Somalia or something.

See what life is like without the guidelines.

 

[ScatterBen]

There's a very controversial case in English law called Brown that basically states that you can't have sado-masochistic sex if it's resulting in GBH (these guys were piercing scrotums and other nasty stuff), and consent is not a defence.

It was controversial at the time because they were homosexuals and it's doubted whether the Lords would have decided the same way had they been heterosexual (this was later an issue in another case, and at least the House of Lords was consistent).

It does raise questions, though. Why can someone enter into a boxing match and have the shit beaten out of them but not have sado-masochistic sex?

Perhaps not entirely relevant to the topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[LightspeedJack]

As long as no laws are broken. Sure. Go for it.

Cannibalism? There's a law for that.

Pedophilia? There's a law for that.

Incest? There's a law for that.

Backgammon? There's no law for that.

I'm a little scared to ask but what is that last one?

 

[Craorach]

Edit : irrelevent rant was deleted so my rant is even more irrelevent!

@Lightspeed

http://www.backgammon.org/

I'm so, so sorry. It cannot be unseen.

 

[Custard_Angel]

SNIP

I'm a little scared to ask but what is that last one?

Google it.

It is... nothing like you might possibly expect.

 

[Gigano]

If we're talking consent between adults sane enough to be considered able to enter into legally binding contracts, then no, there is no limit to what they should be able to consent to and practise in privacy.

When you're then "sane enough to be considered able to enter into legally binding contracts" then becomes another question. Obviously German law didn't consider that guy able to consent to being eaten, and such action does indeed seem to entail a presumption against being wholly sane and able to understand the consequences of one's choice.

So some actions between consenting adults can reasonably outlawed until established whether they're medically sane and able to answer for their actions. If that is the case, then they should be allowed to proceed with whatever they want to do, assuming it doesn't harm anyone but themselves (or another examined adult who've consented).

 

[GLo Jones]

I would agree that 'what two consenting adults do in private' is no-one else's business, on the condition it doesn't have a lasting effect on anyone else.

A man being eaten alive definitely has an effect on anyone that cares about him, making it their business. It is the law's job in this case to protect them from his hedonism.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

There is no black or white. You ask people to turn a grey situation into a black and white one, when you yourself can't/won't do it.

Imagine a scale from 0 (No) to 100 (Yes). The area between those two values is entirely grey, but there is always a definitive range your opinion falls into. 0-49 = No, 50-100 = Yes.

I find it hard to believe you are actually so completely ambivalent about the issue that you're stuck on 49.5 ...

But as you said yourself that area is entirely grey. Using your example, you want us to put a single value out of 100 into a binary choice. Its not that simple again. It never will be that simple. Not to mention on a topic like this a single opinion cannot be reduced down to a single figure out of 100.

Of course it's not simple, hence the discussion thread.
The poll isn't what's important. Don't worry about the poll. It's just a vague indicator of general opinions. If I included a third 'it depends' option, I can guarantee most would pick that, and the poll would be completely pointless.
The point of the poll as it stands is to incite people to make a spurious, instinctive choice, and then consider how and why they came to that choice. Rather than just ticking a box and moving on.
I mentioned the numerical scale thing because, personally, that's how I make binary choices: think about it, pick a number that best reflects my feelings, and see where it falls. But it's up to you. Don't choose if you don't want to.

The taboo against incest on the other hand is just common sense- inbreeding causes physiological and genetic aberrations, the disgust most people feel at the thought is a biological safeguard that has been bred into us over centuries of natural selection.

That's not quite true. There are all forms of incest, even today. In Anthropology we learned about a culture where they believed children grew inside the mother on their own, and the father wasn't related to his offspring. So paternal incest was fine (and daughters were actually expected to be ritually deflowered by their father's brother).

Also, inbreeding doesn't inherently cause genetic abnormalities. I went into more detail in the incest thread, but basically it's possible for a brother and sister to have 'good' genes (i.e. not be carriers of anything like hemophilia, etc.), and could birth children with impunity.

Point being, it's not necessarily "common sense" that drives us as a species.

 

[Scabadus]

I voted yes, because sometimes what people do in private can affect others. As long as it literally only affects the two people in the private room then yeah they can go for it, but if it affect anyone else at all - including any children born from the relationship - then that has to be taken into account.

 

[ssgt splatter]

So there is a fetish in which someone gets off on being eaten alive?!?!
Does that mean they jerk-off to movies like Jurassic Park or Alien or games like Dead Space or Resident Evil?
That is more creepy than the incest thread to be honest.

 

[Chechosaurus]

As long as it's not anything like murder or cannibalism, and all parties involved are consenting adults, then yeah, go nuts. It really is nobody's business what you do to get your rocks off.

 

[Craorach]

I would agree that 'what two consenting adults do in private' is no-one else's business, on the condition it doesn't have a lasting effect on anyone else.

A man being eaten alive definitely has an effect on anyone that cares about him, making it their business. It is the law's job in this case to protect them from his hedonism.

When you start talking about lasting effects on people other than those involved, you start down a rather slippery slope.

Yes, the loss of a loved one has a terrible and traumatic effect.

But there are plenty of people that would argue that finding out a loved on is into hardcore BDSM... or is a furry... or is homosexual... or is into blondes... or likes midgets.. or decided to go to art school instead of becoming an accountant... or supports a different sports team.... or votes for a different political party... or worships a different religion has a traumatic on their loved ones.

 

[Lieju]

A lot depends on if it's an informed decision, and about the mental state of the person. If they are for example in a psychosis, and would change their mind later, other people, and even the state should step in and stop them doing some things.

Also your actions will affect others, even if very indirectly. It can be argued that everyone has the right to end their own life, but it will have an effect on others. There probably are at least someone who would be sad, not to mention depending on your way to go it can be harmful or bothersome to others.

 

[Lieju]

That's not quite true. There are all forms of incest, even today. In Anthropology we learned about a culture where they believed children grew inside the mother on their own, and the father wasn't related to his offspring. So paternal incest was fine (and daughters were actually expected to be ritually deflowered by their father's brother).

Also, inbreeding doesn't inherently cause genetic abnormalities. I went into more detail in the incest thread, but basically it's possible for a brother and sister to have 'good' genes (i.e. not be carriers of anything like hemophilia, etc.), and could birth children with impunity.

Point being, it's not necessarily "common sense" that drives us as a species.

Yes, but there have been studies about sexual selection, and even if it's unconscious, humans (and other animals) tend to avoid close relatives, and find for example the smell of their siblings not-sexy.
As natural selection has favoured non-incestial behaviour.
There are cultural differences, though, especially if the women have no say in who they want to marry or have kids with.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

Voted no, but I also don't think that 'consent' is just a matter of physically saying 'yes' or 'no'. The law agrees with me - which is why no amount of attempted consent prevents sex by an adult with an underage teenager/kid from being rape.

Firstly, consent requires an understanding of the likely repercussions of the activity. It isn't enough, for example, to know what sex is and how to do it. The person also has to be capable of understanding how pregnancy or STDs are likely to affect his future goals/lifestyle, and must be capable of placing any risks in that context. The person needs to be capable of working out how they are likely to be affected emotionally. Most victims of paedophilia don't view the activity as wrong UNTIL they are well into adulthood, often a couple of decades after the events. The paedophile has no grounds to complain, because the victim's delay is EXACTLY what you'd expect - i.e. they weren't capable of fully understanding the ramifications and context of a sexual relationship at the time, and they didn't realise how they were being taken advantage of, nullifying their consent. The fact that they only came to this conclusion after the events just serves to emphasise why we rule that kids/teenagers aren't capable of consenting (if nothing else, society needs certainty - need to have the age of consent at an age where people aren't likely to change their mind 10 years after the event).

Consent ALSO needs to be free from gross power imbalances. That's why incest, even between adults, is almost always wrong. Families have inbuilt power structures that are enormously strong. You rely on each other for the basics of being raised, for co-raising each others' children, for financial, emotional and practical support. In those circumstances, there is a real danger that an apparent 'consent' will actually be marred by one partner having near-absolute control over the other. There are plenty of cases of children who have been molested by a parent, where the molestation continued past the age of 18. Usually, the sex wasn't physically resisted, and would have all the appearances and 'not nows', and 'okay nows' of a consensual relationship. But the problem is that neither partner can actually choose to not have a relationship with the other. They are already in an intimate relationship by virtue of being father and daughter (or son). With a sexual element added into it, you've got a person who is essentially trapped. They fear that if they say no, there's going to be violence, or that it's their father and they CAN'T say no (having been conditioned that was as a child). They worry that their mother/family will blame them, and so they go along with it to prevent others from finding out. They worry that a police investigation/prosecution will tear the family apart, and everyone will blame them for sending the father to jail. Or they might just not want to send their father to jail, even if they don't want to have sex with him. Same thing can occur with brother/sister.

Hence most incest, even between adults, is wrong because they can't give meaningful consent, only formal consent. Same with relationships where one person controls the other through physical or extreme emotional abuse.

 

[Korolev]

Depends on what they are consenting to. If it's a matter purely between the two individuals, then in most cases, yes. However, how can you be sure that the individuals are giving their genuine consent? How are we to know that both are capable of making rational decision at the time?

For most matters sexual in nature, then it doesn't really matter. However, because we cannot be ENTIRELY sure that consent is genuine or fully understood, there are a few limits:

1) Even with consent, NO ONE is allowed to sell themselves or put them selves into slavery. This law must be upheld, because it is actually quite easy to trick people into virtual slavery, or give them drugs to make them compliant.
2) You're not allowed to give away your rights.
3) You cannot give consent to actions that will involve ANYONE else who hasn't given their consent.
4) Your actions must in no way harm anyone else not involved. Period.
5) The action should not result in death. If euthanasia is the goal, the killing cannot be done by any civilian, but must be performed by AT LEAST 4 doctors from 4 different hospitals and a judge.

That's about all I can think of right now. Other than that, go nuts. If you honestly give your consent that someone punch you square in the face, who am I to stop you? If you want to engage in nasty business, again, who am I to stop you? Keep it between yourselves, involve no one else and you're pretty much in the clear.

NOTE: Incest that results in offspring IS involving someone else - the offspring who might have to live with a debilitating genetic illness, so morally it's not right for family members to interbreed.

EDIT: Oh and I forgot - consent must be given by healthy adult (16+ or 18+ depending on what country you are from) males/females with no mental difficulties or serious impairments. They cannot be on ANY psychoactive drug at the time and that includes alcohol. They must be fully aware of their surroundings and all terms.

Consent given by children is not consent. Consent given by the drunk is not real consent. Consent given by someone tripping on LSD is not real consent. Consent given by someone with brain damage is most likely not genuine consent. You can only truly give consent to something you understand and comprehend fully.

 

[Serenityrade]

To reply briefly, you may do as you please.

Insolong as you can later choose not to.

Committing suicide is to be prevented by force. Committing murder is to be prevented by force.

Cost/benefit goes over uncertain comphrension - it is an assessment of reality. You can choose to kill yourself, so as to prevent yourself from feeling pain. But ultimately the detrimental effect of killing yourself is measurably infinite proportionate to the greatest possible effect of you being alive at the following point.

Any positive or negative aspect is burned from you. An abyss. That is all. Society will perform judgement on you if you harm yourself.

You will be protected from your own actions by society if you make them public and society does not wish you to perform them where it is permissible.

If your actions are not permissible, you will be judged and you will be punished.

Judgement is also a punishment.

You should be permitted to exercise your judgement independently irrespective of situation in society.

You cannot say it is wrong or right to harm, only that it is right or wrong to harm you.

You, also, have no dominion over another that has not given it unto you.

The value of the choice is proportionate to the value of all choices made from that source.

 

[Dys]

We don't give the green light to suicide, self harm or drug use to individuals, and couples are implicitly restricted to the same freedoms. It's simply unfair for a couple to do things if there is some other toll on society.