And that’s the problem with making laws based on such speculation. No one can prove what those effects might be, and even if they can, it’s still usually a subjective determination as to whether those effects are harmful or not. Some people might view a sexually permissive culture as harmful in itself; I sure don’t want them to be the ones making the decision.
So I say that if everyone who’s directly affected consents, that’s all that matters. Any further effects, if they can even be proved to exist, are simply the price of freedom.
If you accept a woman’s right to say “no” to sex for whatever reasons, good bad or indifferent, she might have, why do you not accept her right to say “yes” to sex for whatever reasons, good bad or indifferent, she might have?
I have a hard time defining anyone as crazy, i.e. unable to consent, simply because of which particular thing they’re consenting to.
It wasn’t that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and I can sure picture someone saying “When you go around having anal sex with other men for the sake of an orgasm, you’re batshit crazy and the state has a right to put you in the looney bin.” I can’t say no sane person wants to die any more than I could say no sane person wants to screw someone of the same sex.
It is. People can and do starve themselves. They are certainly physically addicted to food. You have converted a difference of degree to a difference of kind. You have placed the ‘emotional desire’ to escape crack cravings on a sufficiently high footing that it gets ‘converted’ to an automating driver. But people can and do go cold turkey for atleast a while, which shows that it is a willed behaviour, a decision to give in, or not. They can’t quit completely and instantly because some drugs modify complex homeostatic loops and to recalibrate them back to normal requires an informed approach and dedication. Many are ignorant and this also conflicts with most people’s “omnipotent-like” conception of ‘free will’ (“Just quit!”).
Heroin withdrawal isn’t lethal either, just really unpleasant (cite: White House Drug Policy). Come on, I gave you two good examples.
As II Gyan II points out, food withdrawal is fatal too. People can and do starve themselves to death. Yet I don’t think you’d claim that someone who performs an act because he’s hungry isn’t really consenting. Would you say an alcoholic who performs an act to get money for liquor isn’t really consenting?
I don’t know. I don’t know how this is a counter to a hypothetical that need not take place in the US either. If you’re not going to answer my question, then don’t, but cop out non-answers I’ll just keep replying to.
All of my answers to the survey were generated against a backdrop of United States policy and programs. The survey is not necessarily US-centric, but my answers and rating as a response to the survey are.
Someone being very hungry, and doing things as a result, certainly is possible. But these questions address POLICY issues. As a matter of policy, we have - here, in the US - myraid programs to ensure that those that need food may get it. So as a matter of policy, I’d first want a realistic scenario as to why this starving person was unable to benefit from existing programs.
If this is overseas somewhere, then there are too many variables. Someone could threaten her with a gun in order to obtain sex, but because of his family connections, be routinely beyond the law. That’s not consent either but it’s effectively, practically, legal. My survey answers, taking into account the totality of circumstances in a given country, would likely change dramatically.
If I approached this survey from the perspective of “somewhere in the world,” then most of my answers would be “It depends.”
I might argue just that, yes. If someone is starving and has sex for food, which she can otherwise not obtain, then I absolutely question the reality (though not the legality) of her consent.
I can’t imagine how the possibility of a corrupt government allowing rapists to go free could change your answer to a question about consensual sex.
Interesting. That’s exactly how I approached it: “Do I want to live in a place where this statement is true or false?”
We could say the same thing about jogging or using the toilet too, if we wanted to be that pedantic; after all, people in poor health have died from overexertion. But I wouldn’t say someone who eats a box of prunes should fear for his life, you know?
You are focusing, myopically, on one aspect of my answer, when I keep emphasizing the totality of the circumstances.
Yes, jogging may also be fatal. But jogging does not come into play in this example. A heroin addict in poor health is a candidate for sexual exploitation; an out-of-shape jogger is generally not; prune-eaters are not typically targets for sexual predators either.
:shrug: What is the problem? A hole in your argument is a hole in your argument, no matter how much you “know” you are right, or how little you think it relates to your point.
Then I’ll leave that aspect to die and address another: people will do things they ordinarily wouldn’t do if it’s to keep themselves from starving (or going into withdrawal, I suppose), even before they’re “desperate”. People in crappy jobs wouldn’t be there if they could pay for food, shelter, alcohol, crack, or whatever else they need without going to work.
If an addict who agrees to have sex for money isn’t giving consent when withdrawal is a few hours away, then surely she isn’t consenting when withdrawal is a few days or weeks away either.
Now, since we’re all “addicted” to food, and there’s nothing about your chain of logic that ties it to sex specifically, one might conclude that nothing we do to earn money is consensual.
Yes, Scott, a hole is a hole. Thank you for bringing this tautological observation to light.
However, here there is no hole. And, for the tautology-minded, I should point out that no hole is no hole.
Specifically, Mr2001 sought to create several analogies: between the possible fatality of jogging while in poor health and the possible fatality of heroin withdrawal while in poor health. I distinguished the two cases by pointing out that while both are potentially fatal, both do not have equal relevance to the underlying set of assumptions: deciding whether a person encumbered by fear of fatality may meaningfully give consent to sex.
When responding to Mr2001, I gave only the short-hand version of the above argument, because I’ve talked to him before, and while we disagree on many things, I’ve never found him to be unable to pick up and understand basic English or basic arguments, and I know him to be a sharp intellect.
However, since you raise the question, I am happy to reply in more detail, so that you, too, may follow along.
If I may request, chaps, could you continue this elsewhere since it no longer bears almost any relation at all to #59? I would suggest a title of “Sex and economic coercion” or the like.
But consider self-defense. There comes a point at which you’re backed into the corner, you can’t retreat, and your life is in imminent danger. At that point, you may use lethal force to protect yourself.
Before that point, you may not… even though you might argue that events are moving you inexorably TOWARDS that point.
I’d argue that’s a valid analogy to the consent issue above. There comes a point at which I think it’s proper to question the consent offered by the addict, but it must be at a true point of imminency, not days or weeks away.
Not at all. Again, imminency of starvation is required, I’d suggest, before we potentially reach non-consensual territory. There was a thread a while ago in GQ, with the hypothetical that the questioner was shipwrecked on a faraway island with a famous actress. The OP wondered if it would be rape to tell this actress, who had no survival skills, “I’ll give you the food I catch, but only if you’ll sleep with me.” The OP wondered whether this would be rape.
Legally, of course, it is not. The OP has no duty to feed the actress. But we can certainly question the consent of the actress in that situation. I absolutely acknowledge that from a legal perpective, there is no rape. But equally solid is my conviction that from a moral perspective, the behavior is reprehensible and the “consent” drawn from the threat of starvation is questionable.
Finally, I would again point out that if the setting is Anytown, USA, then the threat of starvation is a red herring. A person faced with a lack of food in the United States today may solve that problem by getting aid from one of the many programs designed to solve such problems. So in this country, I don’t believe you can meaningfully wave the spectre of starvation as a true threat, in general circumstances.
The question, as it relates to #59, is how do we meaningfully determine consent?
If I were to lend any support to the proposition advanced in #59, it would be based on precisely this point: we don’t necessarily do a good job of defining “consent,” at present, so that laws permitting adult consensual behavior may actually permit behavior that it is appropriate to quash.
But if you feel that drilling down into what “consent” means for the purposes of this question is too far afield, then I’ll withdraw.
