Different views on what consent is (poll)

[PorcelainLark]

Yes, I reject the idea that drunk sex is automatically rape. Obviously if someone is drunk to the point of unconsciousness then it's rape. But merely drinking, having impaired judgement and doing something you later regret is no reason to be held less accountable for your actions. DUIs prove that point.

I didn't really use a good example for that issue. I think what it's more like is if a drunk person is feeling neutral or negative about having sex, and someone pushes them to have sex they are more likely to acquiesce to it, regardless of whether they would actually want it.
I think the analogy is comparable, for example, in the sense that children are often willing to do things for the approval/attention of adults regardless of whether they enjoy it.
Under either of those circumstances, would you view rape as having taken place?

I partly reject the premise that we develop stronger boundaries as we get older, that hasn't been my experience at all.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

But as for preventing regret, my idealistic answer is that we don't need to prevent regret. We just need to prevent direct harm. If we're trying to prevent regret then surely marriage should result in prison time as well?

I'd say getting someone who is drunk to marry you probably isn't a good idea either, but marriage can be annulled, whereas "having had sex" isn't a state you can undo.

Maybe a pro-contact perspective requires a less casual view of sex? i.e. you'd need to know a child feels enthusiastic about sex independently of how his or her family and peers feel about sex, to ensure invitations to sexual acts are occurring for the right reasons (as I think all adults have some moral responsibility for the well being of children). Unless you argue that decisions made under peer pressure are reflective of a person's true desires.
The issue is that part of raising children is distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable desires. Like candy, for example, if you eat too much of it you get diabetes, or aggression, hitting another child for losing a game is maladaptive behavior. Obtaining consent, when you are simultaneously responsible for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable desire makes things a lot more complicated, because there is a conflict of interest. Perhaps you would need a third party to ensure the adult that wishes to engage in a sexual act isn't abusing their authority to get the minor to acquiesce to sex?

[Fragment]

Under either of those circumstances, would you view rape as having taken place?

No, I wouldn't. I don't think either situation is ideal, more enthusiastically participating is better. But it's definitely not the equivalent of rape. And I say that as someone who's experienced the "only did it because I was drunk" type sex.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

The question assumes that older adults have more clearly defined lines around sex than younger people, but I haven't. For various reasons I was more hung up on sex as a teen, that loosened in my 20s and basically hasn't changed since then, on an ideological level.

Maybe a pro-contact perspective requires a less casual view of sex?

I don't think that embracing anti-sex or sexceptionalist ideology too strongly should be a prerequisite of a pro-c position. It's so weird to me that despite the increase in secularity society is becoming more and more prudish about sex. Obviously affirmative consent is better than dubious consent. However the punitive approach being taken to "bad sex" is really crazy. I don't agree entirely with the MRA positions on sex, either, but I can see where they are coming from. Sex with a university professor by a student in the 70s would've been considered an expression of power on the part of the young woman. Now it's seen as an abuse of authority by the professor. Sex should be empowering, not victimizing.

[PorcelainLark]

No, I wouldn't. I don't think either situation is ideal, more enthusiastically participating is better. But it's definitely not the equivalent of rape. And I say that as someone who's experienced the "only did it because I was drunk" type sex.

But didn't you choose the option that consent is about desire? This view seems inconsistent with that. Or is rape something other than nonconsensual sex, in your view?

The question assumes that older adults have more clearly defined lines around sex than younger people, but I haven't. For various reasons I was more hung up on sex as a teen, that loosened in my 20s and basically hasn't changed since then, on an ideological level.

It's hard to know without gathering evidence, and even then, who would you gather it from? I have the feeling most people would say "of course I regret sexual experiences during my childhood" regardless of whether it was actually true.

I don't think that embracing anti-sex or sexceptionalist ideology too strongly should be a prerequisite of a pro-c position. It's so weird to me that despite the increase in secularity society is becoming more and more prudish about sex. Obviously affirmative consent is better than dubious consent. However the punitive approach being taken to "bad sex" is really crazy. I don't agree entirely with the MRA positions on sex, either, but I can see where they are coming from. Sex with a university professor by a student in the 70s would've been considered an expression of power on the part of the young woman. Now it's seen as an abuse of authority by the professor. Sex should be empowering, not victimizing.

I'm not sure I see that attitude changing any time soon, even among sex-positive people. Even in a world where AMSC was socially acceptable, I doubt "hook up culture" would be acceptable (i.e. MAPs that would go from one child to another, basically just using them for sex). I think the current dating culture is part of the motivation of why people want to shield children from sex.
I guess we just disagree on whether sex itself can be severely harmful from a psychological viewpoint. I tend to think it can be and often is, but it could also be less traumatic under different cultural circumstances.

[Fragment]

But didn't you choose the option that consent is about desire? This view seems inconsistent with that. Or is rape something other than nonconsensual sex, in your view?

It's probably more accurate for me to say that "non consent is a desire NOT to". I think a neutral desire is still consent. "I don't mind either way" is still consent. It's not enthusiastic consent, but it's sufficient.

The question assumes that older adults have more clearly defined lines around sex than younger people, but I haven't. For various reasons I was more hung up on sex as a teen, that loosened in my 20s and basically hasn't changed since then, on an ideological level.

It's hard to know without gathering evidence, and even then, who would you gather it from? I have the feeling most people would say "of course I regret sexual experiences during my childhood" regardless of whether it was actually true.

Yeah, I only said that I reject the premise for anecdotal reasons. It's not in-line with my experience.

I guess we just disagree on whether sex itself can be severely harmful from a psychological viewpoint. I tend to think it can be and often is, but it could also be less traumatic under different cultural circumstances.

I have two things to say about this- first as you say it's culture that makes sex traumatic. I do think that sex, due to the hormone cocktail involved, is going to be distinct from other actions. There's more bond-promoting hormones released during sex with someone than when watching a movie with someone. This can lead to more extreme reactions. MAPs are not solely sexually attracted to minors, of course, but I think the lack of sex (well, moreso intimacy) is what leads MAPs to either feeling suicidally lonely or breaking the law. Sex isn't that special, but it is special.

My second point, though, is that the emotions involved with sex are not things that the the government needs to be involved in regulating. The government shouldn't be involved in managing human relationships unless really necessary to prevent things like violence, blackmail or slavery. I think bullying is a moral wrong, but I think it should be managed by society without using punitive laws against it. I think it's my libertarian streak, but I'm strongly against the regulatory state that's emerged post-Christianity. The liberal secularism of the 60s-70s was so much more attractive.

[Artaxerxes II]

I think the analogy is comparable, for example, in the sense that children are often willing to do things for the approval/attention of adults regardless of whether they enjoy it.
Under either of those circumstances, would you view rape as having taken place?

But if children are so eager to please, why does physical discipline exists in so many cultures and is in widespread use? I never got this, especially since one would conclude that this is more the result of socialisation rather than an inherent trait. Besides their parents generally, I don't think many (pre-pubescent) children are receptive to adults, so referencing it seems like a red herring if we are talking about generalities. But y'know, at this point this would just become a battle of anecdotes, so I'll leave it at that.

I'd say getting someone who is drunk to marry you probably isn't a good idea either, but marriage can be annulled, whereas "having had sex" isn't a state you can undo.

Yes, you can't undo the fact that you had sex, but unless the pubescent or post-pubescent female got pregnant, or either partner got some STD/STI, then the sex itself isn't inherently life-changing, and the meaning attached to the act is just what we wish to prescribe to it, nothing else. You may argue that such a casual view of sex is disagreeable, but unless one advocates for the return of marriage plus a prohibition on promiscuity and adultery, I see little reason to view sex as anything other than a casual affair in a secular society. Otherwise you get all these overly bureaucratic proposals on how to regulate legalised intimate intergenerational relationships, which is what you seemed to have hinted at.

Pubescent humans won't need anymore protections than adults have obviously, but children below the age of 12 or so likely will need extra protection. Thus, I were to propose a solution, then I would only allow heterosexual adult-child relationships within a marital context, where parental consent is the main requirement. Parents and guardians, by virtue of being the main investors of the child, would thus have its best interest in mind, so their decision can be trusted unless it was made under duress. I say iy as it partially aligns with my beliefs, and does have historical precedence, on the top of resonating with the more conservative sections of society, plus it's not as complicated.

Feel free to disagree.

[Rin]

I am of the line of thought that consent ≠ willingness, applying the concept of consent, which is legal in nature, to romantic and sexual relationships is nothing more than a way of reinventing marriage, only with the difference that anyone who dares to break the contract would be guilty of rape, something very dangerous.

One of the things that bothers me the most about antis and NGO activists is how desperate they are to try to get everything considered rape as possible, they can't get enough of what they already have.

[PorcelainLark]

I suppose I'll have to play the role of devil's advocate for the anti-contact perspective for the moment, otherwise there's a danger of this turning into a circlejerk.

My second point, though, is that the emotions involved with sex are not things that the the government needs to be involved in regulating. The government shouldn't be involved in managing human relationships unless really necessary to prevent things like violence, blackmail or slavery. I think bullying is a moral wrong, but I think it should be managed by society without using punitive laws against it. I think it's my libertarian streak, but I'm strongly against the regulatory state that's emerged post-Christianity. The liberal secularism of the 60s-70s was so much more attractive.

Do you think it's necessary to prevent sexual harassment?

But if children are so eager to please, why does physical discipline exists in so many cultures and is in widespread use? I never got this, especially since one would conclude that this is more the result of socialisation rather than an inherent trait. Besides their parents generally, I don't think many (pre-pubescent) children are receptive to adults, so referencing it seems like a red herring if we are talking about generalities.

It's very simple: getting children to perform a sexual act, theft, or lying is different than getting children to sleep, do homework, or eat healthily. The former involves taking a risk, the latter involves discipline and repetition.
Imagine you had a celebrity which a child was a fan of, e.g. Chrisiano Ronaldo. Compare two different scenarios, one in which Ronaldo gets asks a child to do their homework and another where Ronaldo gets the child to break someone's window. The chance is that a child may break a window and end up feeling guilty, while doing their homework will not make them feel weird.
Getting children to do things varies depending on what the action is and how they feel about the person asking them. Obviously if someone they don't like asks them to do something they would feel guilty about, they wouldn't do it; however there are times where they would do things they otherwise wouldn't for people they look up to.

Yes, you can't undo the fact that you had sex, but unless the pubescent or post-pubescent female got pregnant, or either partner got some STD/STI, then the sex itself isn't inherently life-changing, and the meaning attached to the act is just what we wish to prescribe to it, nothing else. You may argue that such a casual view of sex is disagreeable, but unless one advocates for the return of marriage plus a prohibition on promiscuity and adultery, I see little reason to view sex as anything other than a casual affair in a secular society.

Maybe you're a less sensitive person than me. I've had sexual/romantic relations with people which didn't involve STDs or pregnancies, but which I deeply regret. For example, crossing that threshold with people you know can leave you feeling deeply uncomfortable, but at least as an adult you have the option to leave.
I feel like if you want to challenge the current view, you have to take the psychological motivations for it seriously. A blunt approach isn't going to change how people feel about this, and so it isn't going to change minds.

Pubescent humans won't need anymore protections than adults have obviously, but children below the age of 12 or so likely will need extra protection

.
You never did anything you regretted as teenager, that you wouldn't have done as adult?

I am of the line of thought that consent ≠ willingness, ... the concept of consent, which is legal in nature...

Where do you think the concept of consent comes from originally, if not willingness?

[Artaxerxes II]

I'll bite it. So, let's begin...

Do you think it's necessary to prevent sexual harassment?

Define "Sexual harassment", given that it has such a wide definition and often involves something as innocuous as a female co-worker overhearing a lewd joke, or even a hug or some. inappropriate behaviour done by a neurodivergent boy: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-aut ... offenders/

But yh, I have to go with Fragments when he says that it's not the government's job to regulate people's emotional responses to sex.

It's very simple: getting children to perform a sexual act, theft, or lying is different than getting children to sleep, do homework, or eat healthily. The former involves taking a risk, the latter involves discipline and repetition.

Everything involves a risk if you look for it, and doing homework is no exception, given that one can fail in it and have their grades affected, especially if they fail repeatedly. You simply can't take away the risk from any pro-active action, and yes doing nothing has its risks. Same goes for having you circadian rhythm disrupted. To the next point, one can easily be said for adults, after all Trump did manage to rally a mob to storm Congress under false election fraud charges. As such, I don't think it's sensible to assume that the same level of susceptibility doesn't exist in adults as well. Weinstein and many such cases have already shown how women's reactions to "sexual assault" (a.k.a., regretted sex) is no different than the way media describes standard CSA stories. Which, brings me to the other point:

Maybe you're a less sensitive person than me. I've had sexual/romantic relations with people which didn't involve STDs or pregnancies, but which I deeply regret. For example, crossing that threshold with people you know can leave you feeling deeply uncomfortable, but at least as an adult you have the option to leave.
I feel like if you want to challenge the current view, you have to take the psychological motivations for it seriously. A blunt approach isn't going to change how people feel about this, and so it isn't going to change minds.

You have my condolences for your regret, but regardless regret in itself isn't enough to justify wholesale discrimination against MAPs and their attraction down to laws effectively criminalising their sexuality, such as the SOR and capital punishment for sex with under-12s (which is the current reality in Florida and elsewhere). Plenty of adult women regret their sex life after months or even days, but should we ban heterosexual sex now as some radfems advocate? Because like it or not, not every adult can leave their relationship, and plenty of adults have regrets for past decisions that they made regardless of age, all of which carried risks of some sort. So, at which lengths should society go to in regulating people's private lives just so that they feel zero regrets about anything? Why should we assume that a 16 year old would be less able to cope with regrets than a 18 years old?

To take the classic example of cycling, an activity which isn't essential to a child's growth and carries many risks but which society allows, would the risk of injury justify a ban on cycling or putting an age limit of 25 or some arbitrary age to it? Because, looking from a certain POV, the fact that current western society finds children cycling to be less objectionable than AMSC regardless of the actual risks says more about it double standards more than anything else.

You never did anything you regretted as teenager, that you wouldn't have done as adult?

Well, I certainly regret not having eaten cooked octopus sticks when I was younger after becoming vegan (later on switching to pescatarianism), but y'know I don't think regret alone would still justify a ban on veganism or putting an age limit to it. Same goes for AMSC, regret in itself isn't enough to justify the many draconian laws oppressing us MAPs, unless your entire point is to save people in general from the consequences of their decisions by taking away their agency and let the government or some other third party decide for them. It's partly because I knew regret would happen, that I proposed parentally-approved youth-adult marriage as the solution, given that parents are the best decision-makers for their children for as long as the child is dependant on them for its basic necessities.

Where do you think the concept of consent comes from originally, if not willingness?

It's not actual willingness if the judge in court is the one to decide whether you "consented" or not, for consent is solely a socio-legal construct not rooted in biology and part of the reason MAPs are oppressed is because of rape laws changing to "consent-based" definitions wherein proving that the act never occurred in the first place is the only way for a defendant to save themselves from a criminal charge/s, especially now that the definition is being so broadened that regretted sex is deemed as rape now due to "consent theory" mandating that "consent" not only can be detracted even years after the deed was done, but that the victim is the sole purveyor of truth here. At least, that's what ideological victimologists seem to want.

[PorcelainLark]

Define "Sexual harassment", given that it has such a wide definition and often involves something as innocuous as a female co-worker overhearing a lewd joke, or even a hug or some. inappropriate behaviour done by a neurodivergent boy: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-aut ... offenders/

How about unsolicited dick pics, asking what color underwear a woman is wearing, stalking a person, or groping? Do you think all of those should be dealt with without the law?

Everything involves a risk if you look for it, and doing homework is no exception, given that one can fail in it and have their grades affected, especially if they fail repeatedly. You simply can't take away the risk from any pro-active action, and yes doing nothing has its risks. Same goes for having you circadian rhythm disrupted. To the next point, one can easily be said for adults, after all Trump did manage to rally a mob to storm Congress under false election fraud charges. As such, I don't think it's sensible to assume that the same level of susceptibility doesn't exist in adults as well. Weinstein and many such cases have already shown how women's reactions to "sexual assault" (a.k.a., regretted sex) is no different than the way media describes standard CSA stories.

I can't tell if you're being serious. A family member made me do something against the law when I was a kid, and it contributed to me having panic attacks. Someone you love/trust/respect getting you to do something you to do something sexual isn't comparable to them getting you to do your homework. Not all risks are equal. Trauma is real, even if it wouldn't occur in a different kind of culture.

You have my condolences for your regret, but regardless regret in itself isn't enough to justify wholesale discrimination against MAPs and their attraction down to laws effectively criminalising their sexuality, such as the SOR and capital punishment for sex with under-12s (which is the current reality in Florida and elsewhere). Plenty of adult women regret their sex life after months or even days, but should we ban heterosexual sex now as some radfems advocate? Because like it or not, not every adult can leave their relationship, and plenty of adults have regrets for past decisions that they made regardless of age, all of which carried risks of some sort. So, at which lengths should society go to in regulating people's private lives just so that they feel zero regrets about anything? Why should we assume that a 16 year old would be less able to cope with regrets than a 18 years old?

It's not black-and-white in my view. I think you can recognize sexual trauma and regret without having as severe penalties for it as we currently have. There's different scales of regret: some things feel dumb, other things make you cringe when you remember it, and then there's stuff that traumatizes you/keeps you up at night. I think it's because we have a culture that navigates these issues so clumsily that people want severe penalties (i.e. because they can't bear the inadequacy of culture to articulate those feelings). For comparison, the answer to bullying isn't just growing a thicker skin, since there is a harm or malice that is occurring which needs to be recognized; the violent reaction people end up having towards it is the result of downplaying it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think it's something like the attitude towards sex already provokes anxiety and guilt, so when you add the physical violation of the act, it makes sexual trauma worse than it would otherwise be. What's needed is gradually dissipating the violent, intense feelings, and then people would be able to face sex without reacting to it the way they currently do.

It's not actual willingness if the judge in court is the one to decide whether you "consented" or not, for consent is solely a socio-legal construct not rooted in biology and part of the reason MAPs are oppressed is because of rape laws changing to "consent-based" definitions wherein proving that the act never occurred in the first place is the only way for a defendant to save themselves from a criminal charge/s, especially now that the definition is being so broadened that regretted sex is deemed as rape now due to "consent theory" mandating that "consent" not only can be detracted even years after the deed was done, but that the victim is the sole purveyor of truth here. At least, that's what ideological victimologists seem to want.

So is there no difference between sex that is chosen and sex that isn't? The point of the question, is however the concept of consent has been bastardized by the legal system, there is something real that it was originally referring to.

[Artaxerxes II]

How about unsolicited dick pics, asking what color underwear a woman is wearing, stalking a person, or groping? Do you think all of those should be dealt with without the law?

The employee can still get fired for violating workplace rules, no biggie. I don't get what's your point here, unless you're suggesting capital punishment over dick pics as a deterrent

A family member made me do something against the law when I was a kid, and it contributed to me having panic attacks. Someone you love/trust/respect getting you to do something you to do something sexual isn't comparable to them getting you to do your homework. Not all risks are equal. Trauma is real,

What difference does it make if it's sexual or not? Doing something illegal will always result in negative feelings, whether it's sexual or something like doing hate speech in a place that's criminalised (such as Germany). You can't avoid that unless the culture changes such that not only it's legal, but it won't result in negative backlash. But back to homework, force and coercion were still used nonetheless. I fail to see what's the difference as long as the parent does it to their child. Since it's assumed that parents have the child's best interests in mind, it is thus argued that a parent coercing their child to do something, whether it's forcing their religion on their child or getting them to go to school even if there's no guarantee that she/he will ever get a job, is justified. As such, if the parent deems it fit to have AMSC with their child on the basis that it'll benefit them in the future, is it really that objectionable? What if it was a state worker under the government's auspices who did it?

Point being, while I don't necessarily think coercion is right, there are myriads of ways which coercion for non-sexual reasons with worse risk than simple sex that society is willing to justify, showing that yes, society will uphold double standards based on arbitrary reasons. If it can be argued that sex is beneficial to a child (particularly taught to them by someone they trust), do we have any right to oppose it? Given the well-documented adverse effects of inceldom in men, it would definitely be beneficial for heterosexual minor boys, especially if their adult partner was female. I'm not sure about gay sex, but it might be too traumatising for boys or have too many negative effects depending on the culture. As for girls, I would need to think through it, but legalised parentally-approved youth-adult marriage would definitely be a good step imo.

As for trauma, it's probably not what it is taught to be: https://harpers.org/archive/2021/12/a-p ... uma/?login

It's not black-and-white in my view. I think you can recognize sexual trauma and regret without having as severe penalties for it as we currently have. There's different scales of regret: some things feel dumb, other things make you cringe when you remember it, and then there's stuff that traumatizes you/keeps you up at night. I think it's because we have a culture that navigates these issues so clumsily that people want severe penalties (i.e. because they can't bear the inadequacy of culture to articulate those feelings). For comparison, the answer to bullying isn't just growing a thicker skin, since there is a harm or malice that is occurring which needs to be recognized; the violent reaction people end up having towards it is the result of downplaying it. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think it's something like the attitude towards sex already provokes anxiety and guilt, so when you add the physical violation of the act, it makes sexual trauma worse than it would otherwise be. What's needed is gradually dissipating the violent, intense feelings, and then people would be able to face sex without reacting to it the way they currently do.

Fair enough. But the thing is, trauma is not inherent to sex and neither are the meanings people attach to it, and people (including most adults) do make regrettable decisions all the time. As I pointed out before, if avoiding regrets was the ultimate goal, you'd have to take away everyone's free will since one way or another they would have bad feelings over a past decision they made eventually. Because I'm more concerned with the adverse effects of these draconian laws than how the bad feelings are generated. Perhaps I'm too jaded, but I don't think there is any way to dissipate those violent impulses again us without being blunt.

So is there no difference between sex that is chosen and sex that isn't?

There is, but I opt for articulating it in terms of willingness rather than adopting the enemy's language with terms like "consent".