MAP Forum

Something I was reading today got me thinking I wanted to try to clarify what consent means. I worked out roughly two categories of autonomy:

desire-based autonomy (i.e. when a person chooses something because they desire it happening), and
understanding-based autonomy (i.e. when a person chooses something happening having understood it).

Understanding-based autonomy breaks down into two further kinds:

informed understanding (i.e. where someone develops the understanding to make a decision due to being educated), and
developed capacity for understanding (i.e. where a person develops the understanding to make a decision due to becoming more mature)

I think people often blur the lines between the two. For example, antis often invoke horror stories of coercion, but then if you ask "what if a child
wants sexual contact", they switch back to emphasizing understanding as a necessary condition for consent.
Of course, without being informed, there is a major danger of exploitation, but I think it's still possible for an uninformed decision to be meaningful.

What do you guys think?

I choose other because my views of consent is basically all three of them combined.

EDIT
So I decided to further explain mine in more detail. So mine is all three combined because I do agree that we can consent to something that we desire to happen. For example if I am making out with someone and I want it to lead to sex and the person I am making out with is pushing it towards sex then we both want it to happen and we consent via our body language and actions. Consent is also when someone understands something but might not fully understand it. I also some experience in this last one. When I was bout 9 or 10 a friend and his sister were over at the town house I lived in. We were playing Nickelodeon Guts on SNES and we met a bet that the loser had to do something which was agreed to before hand. If I lost I had to suck on my friends dick (he was 12 or 13). Now I certainly didn't know that was a sex act as I really didn't know about that stuff yet. I lost and had to do that. I consented but I didn't fully understand it at all. I don't see what happened to me in that regards all that badly I do know it had some effect on me on how I view sex in general.

Fragment wrote: Sun Aug 11, 2024 3:06 am One question I have for people who support the "informed consent" model of sex is "what information is needed, then?" If understanding and information is all that matters why is it not sufficient to provide that information prior to sexual contact?

The consent is simply a sequence of approvals as long as the actions bring satisfaction and do not cause pain or suffering. A person may express consent out of interest in trying to experience something unfamiliar or repeating an already familiar and enjoyable experience.

"Informed consent" is a hypocritical ploy because even providing information does not free the minor from the victim label. At first, the antis say that minors cannot know the consequences and therefore are not able to give so-called "informed consent", but they immediately refuse to provide this information, claiming that their brain/psyche is not ready yet. At the same time, Antis does not prohibit teaching toddlers to walk, and does not claim that their brain/psyche is not ready for a tricycle, even despite the risk that they might run away and get seriously hurt, but they deny information to young people who already experience erotic fantasies and masturbate. Although it is precisely openness and sexual education that would make the environment safer.

To me consent in its purest form is agreeing to something. If you offer a cookie to a child, they can either consent to take the cookie, or not consent to take the cookie. If you force the child to take the cookie that is cookie grape.

I consented to try a bite of my friends food that I didn’t know what it was and I didn’t know what it would taste like but I tried it anyway. I didn’t like the food, it was unpleasant, so I won’t eat that food again, but I did consent to try it without knowing anything about it.

“Giving consent” definition: the state of agreeing with someone or something.

Given this definition, none of the options come closest to my view.

Option 1: I may accept something even though I do not desire it happening, like paying my tax bill.

Options 2 and 3: As I have sufficient personal autonomy to give consent, I do not need a third party to inform me it can be given.

Those of you who chose desire, what do you think about if a drunk person wanted to have sex with a sober person? Would you say a drunk person is consenting?

Those of you who picked being informed, what do you think a person needs to be informed about in order to consent to sex?

If you're pro contact, if sex is something we develop stronger boundaries about as we get older, what precaution would you take to prevent a minor from regretting a sexual experience in the long run?

If you're anti contact, do you see any difference between statutory rape and rape in general?

Fragment wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2024 4:09 pm We just need to prevent direct harm. If we're trying to prevent regret then surely marriage should result in prison time as well?

Ditto.

A bit tangent, sorry, but the same kind of reasoning should be presented to those who says that relationships boylover/boy don't make sense because they cannot last long. Guess how long lasts the average adult/adult relationship...

Here's my honest opinion on it:

"Consent" as a concept, while it does have its uses, is ultimately grounded in legalese, as shown by what constitutes as "consent" varies to country to country, the age of consent being an obvious example of how inconsistent such definitions are globally. This is followed by my main point:

Consent =/= True will, because as demonstrated by the age of consent and laws prohibiting in-workplace relationships, whether your relationship was willing or not is irrelevant to a court, since they're the ones to determine if you "consented", or in other words whether your will can be recognised as valid or not. So to me "consent" really is a legalistic construct untied to biology, much like marriage and divorce are. As such, consent shouldn't be confused with actual will of a person. I rest my case.

Fragment wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2024 4:09 pm 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 wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 5:50 am 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.