Which is not the point. The point was starvation didn’t force you away from volitional control. People do starve themselves to death, willingly. The starving person who mugs someone, wants to eat (& live). They don’t become food-hunting automatons.
Correct. And people are willingly shot, too. The mere threat of a gun in your face does not rob you of all volitional control. You could declare that you’d rather be shot than give the blowjob; it is, after all, only an emotional attachment to life that would mitigate otherwise.
But the law recognizes that a gun in the face is sufficient coercion to render “consent” under those circumstances meaningless.
I contend that acting under the duress of severe drug addiction is arguably in that same category.
You’re changing tacks. We’re talking about consent, not law’s recognition of it. The latter should derive from the former.
I agree we’re talking about consent, and not the law’s recognition of it.
You said: “The point was starvation didn’t force you away from volitional control. People do starve themselves to death, willingly. The starving person who mugs someone, wants to eat (& live). They don’t become food-hunting automatons.”
I responded by pointing out that the rule you appear to be offering is not workable. To prove that it isn’t workable, I applied it to a gun-in-the-face scenario.
Just as starvation doesn’t force you away from volitional control, neither does a gun in the face. You may make choices even with a gun in your face, just as you make choices when faced with starvation. Nonetheless, as a society, we recognize that having a gun in your face vitiates your consent to sexual acts. Simialrly, I argue that being on the verge of starvation, or in the grip of drug addiction, should vitiate whatever consent you might give to sexual acts.
It does not, legally. But I argue that it should.
Strongly agree that adult bedroom activity is no business of the state, except for disease and harm reasons. If someone knowingly has unprotected sex while they have a serious sexually transmitted disease and does not inform their partner it needs to be put into a catagory somewhere around assault, but somewhat worse. If you start getting into issues of disabling and/or deadly actions you start violating the state monopoly on harm and that is no longer only in the catagory of bedroom activity.
As far as the definition of “consent” and the 18 year old crack addicting prostituting herself… the sex act is not the victimizing act; the addiction is what she is a victim of. Unless the 60 year old man got her addicted to the drug or is somehow responsible for her lack of the drug, he is in no way forcing her. If it is the case of a pimp or dealer forcing her to remain in that lifestyle there are again other issues than the sex act. If she as a consensual act chose to _______ and support those life choices through _________ it is a consensual act. The addiction being to a drug does make it tougher, and in a situation where she could die from withdrawals, it is even tougher, except for the fact that if she went to a hospital they would probably be able save her life, although she would probably not be able to continue the lifestyle(eg crack addiction on the streets) that she has chosen. I really don’t see how her chosing to sell sex is very different than someone choosing to be a boxer or professional sports player. Your body gets damaged and probably used painfully. It is something you consent to within bounds. It can go over those limits into disabling and deadly and addictive areas, but once again the issue is consent and the government monopoly on harm and punishment on a wider level, and not specifically the sex act.
Except it doesn’t. It (just) puts you in a difficult position. Society’s recognition is not derived from the genuine loss of volition but from the overwhemingly (but not completely) shared survival and similar instincts.
Fine. I argue that gun-in-the-face and heroin-addiction should be treated similarly for the purposes of this question.
Unfair, a heroin addict is not prevented from going to the hospital for lifesaving treatment.
Actually not so.
In Baltimore, to pick a nearby example, there are not enough free detox spaces available for those who want them. Of the spaces available, some would-be participants are foreclosed from participating because of previous unsatisfactory performances.
Just how familiar are you with the specifics of inner-city resources available to addicts?
Not very familiar at all, but I was actually speaking of more immediate emergency medical care, not full detox programs. Are you are saying that a heroin addict going into possibly fatal withdrawals would be denied care at a hospital?