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.

I chose the first option.

A deeper understanding of consequences of our actions is always better, of course. However we make plenty of decisions without full information about how those decisions will impact us long-term. In some cases, like medical treatment, we are explained the risks and benefits of treatment. Or when getting a home loan. We have a legal right to information before we make our decision. So there's definitely a point at which understanding is also important.

But fundamentally consent is about agreeing to something at the point of decision (or not). A lack of information doesn't mean failure to consent, it merely means that the quality of consent is lower than it otherwise could've been.

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?

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?

PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 3:53 pm 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?

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.

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?

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

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.