Poll: Consent - Is there a line?

[James Joseph Emerald]

I noticed a prevailing attitude in the recent thread about incest [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.280342-Poll-I-know-Im-probably-going-to-hell-for-this-but] which I've been pondering. It could be summed up as "whatever two consenting adults get up to in private is their own business."

That makes a certain amount of sense.
The only example I can think of that may counter it, is that if a friend or relative developed some bizarre vorephilia fetish, and decided he/she wanted to be eaten alive in the privacy of his/her own home. (This has had precedent in Germany [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes], resulting in a manslaughter charge for the eater). Personally, if my little brother had been eaten, I'd want revenge, even if it was voluntary.

What do you guys think? (Not just about the murder/vorephilia example, but about mutual consent in general)


P.S. Before some of you complain about the lack of a "maybe" option: I made the poll a yes/no question to motivate you to really consider it beforehand. Figure out which answer you lean towards and pick that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Consent" is always a very awkward issue. It's not very well defined or explained, as a rule.

Alot of factors can influence consent, drugs, coercion, etc. How much before the line is crossed? How drunk do you have to be before you can't give consent? How coerced?

Given that lack of consent is a serious issue, and yet consent is a very strange and tenuous thing, I'm voting "yes"...sort of.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

there is no-way some things should be done no-matter who agrees to it. besides as the other guy said "consent" is not always an informed decision.

 

[jakko12345]

I voted yes, but there's so much more to it than a yes or no answer

 

[Kortney]

Consent is difficult.

How much is the "consent" of a mentally vulnerable, unstable manic depressive worth? Should we let them make horrible decisions just because they give their own consent to it?

I don't think so.

And what someone does in the bedroom can have far reaching effects on their life in general - and sometimes the lives of others.

 

[Hader]

Yes and no. It would be bad to make 'consent' the fallback reason for anything and everything. IF we accept mutual consent as an excuse for anything, people will use it, and for the worst of atrocities society will regret it.

 

[TheComedown]

Before some of you complain about the lack of a "maybe" option: I made the poll a yes/no question to motivate you to get your ass off the fence and actually think about it.

You do realize the more you think about it the less clear it will become, no way in hell is this a black and white topic, there will be grey areas. It is impossible to look at this as black and white, yes or no. Forcing people to choose one or the other is just stupid and you will not get any sort of relevant information.

 

[BGH122]

I noticed a prevailing attitude in the recent thread about incest [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.280342-Poll-I-know-Im-probably-going-to-hell-for-this-but] which I've been pondering. It could be summed up as "whatever two consenting adults get up to in private is their own business."

That makes a certain amount of sense.
The only example I can think of that may counter it, is that if a friend or relative developed some bizarre vorephilia fetish, and decided he/she wanted to be eaten alive in the privacy of his/her own home. (This has had precedent in Germany [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes], resulting in a manslaughter charge for the eater). Personally, if my little brother had been eaten, I'd want revenge, even if it was voluntary.

What do you guys think? (Not just about the murder/vorephilia example, but about mutual consent in general)


P.S. Before some of you complain about the lack of a "maybe" option: I made the poll a yes/no question to motivate you to get your ass off the fence and actually think about it.

As long as the consent was explicit and not under duress then it's nobody's business. Sure, I'd be angry and vengeful in the above scenario, but that isn't a logical legitimation for anything. Emotional responses oughtn't factor into logical debate.

 

[Phishfood]

Consent is difficult.

How much is the "consent" of a mentally vulnerable, unstable manic depressive worth? Should we let them make horrible decisions just because they give their own consent to it?

I don't think so.

And what someone does in the bedroom can have far reaching effects on their life in general - and sometimes the lives of others.

This.

Consent of someone of "sound mind and body" and you can do what you like. However, I would say someone wishing to kill themselves (and be eaten afterwards) is not of sound mind and therefore can not give consent.



This is the problem with euthanasia - from a legal standpoint the person being euthanased can NOT legally give consent being terminally ill - doubly so from a disease such as Alzheimers.

 

[Zantos]

If they're keeping it as private as they can then it's noone elses business. For instance if two people at work are dating but trying to hide it from their co-workers and not doing anything in the workplace then they're entitled to their privacy in what they do in their own time.

However keeping with this example if they're obviously popping off for a quicky every day in the stockroom then they've lost that right to privacy.

These socialite celebrity types that we keep hearing about whether we want to or not should have no right to privacy. They spend 90% of their time doing anything to get press attention and 10% of their time in the press complaining about how they have no privacy. Shut up and leave now Jordan.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Before some of you complain about the lack of a "maybe" option: I made the poll a yes/no question to motivate you to get your ass off the fence and actually think about it.

You do realize the more you think about it the less clear it will become, no way in hell is this a black and white topic, there will be grey areas. It is impossible to look at this as black and white, yes or no. Forcing people to choose one or the other is just stupid and you will not get any sort of relevant information.

It's because it's such a grey area that I didn't include a grey answer. Otherwise everyone just says "it depends /thread"

 

[TheComedown]

Before some of you complain about the lack of a "maybe" option: I made the poll a yes/no question to motivate you to get your ass off the fence and actually think about it.

You do realize the more you think about it the less clear it will become, no way in hell is this a black and white topic, there will be grey areas. It is impossible to look at this as black and white, yes or no. Forcing people to choose one or the other is just stupid and you will not get any sort of relevant information.

It's because it's such a grey area that I didn't include a grey answer. Otherwise everyone just says "it depends /thread"

What? But that's exactly what this is, its a situational thing, it depends. It is wrong to say it is one or the other, when it clearly is not.

I voted yes, but

If every single voter commented it would look something like that "yes BUT" "no BUT"

There is no black or white. You ask people to turn a grey situation into a black and white one, when you yourself can't/won't do it.

 

[Riku'sTwilight]

The 'Sound Mind' Argument is a flawed one anyway, as someone can be plainly normal yet have suicidal tendencies deep down that it becomes almost a fantasy, rather than a reality for them. Yet they can still be of sound mind.

In the incest original topic however then yeah, what happens between two adults who understand all the positive's and negative's of their actions can do whatever they feel like.
If they love each other enough to want to be together, then who are we as a society to stop them and so no? Purely because of familial ties?
Incestuous relationships happen the world over, and throughout history. It's just something we as a species do, because it's in our nature to do so, just like animals do too.

Just because we have a higher mind, and like to think of these things as right or wrong then that is where the stigma attached to these thins come from.

Sure times change and we no longer see adult men marrying young, almost teenage women appropriate (i.e. romeo & juliet, renaissance, etc etc) and we now 'frown upon' incestuous relationships but it doesn't mean that a) these things do not happen and b) that the people participating are wrong and ill-fashioned for doing so.

 

[Custard_Angel]

As long as no laws are broken. Sure. Go for it.

Cannibalism? There's a law for that.

Pedophilia? There's a law for that.

Incest? There's a law for that.

Backgammon? There's no law for that.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

There is no black or white. You ask people to turn a grey situation into a black and white one, when you yourself can't/won't do it.

Imagine a scale from 0 (No) to 100 (Yes). The area between those two values is entirely grey, but there is always a definitive range your opinion falls into. 0-49 = No, 50-100 = Yes.

I find it hard to believe you are actually so completely ambivalent about the issue that you're stuck on 49.5 ...

 

[Craorach]

I can't even consider answering this with a Yes or No, especially when you consider such extreme examples as the one in your OP.

Generally speaking... No, so long as both are mentally capable of consent there should be nothing that anyone else has to say in the matter.

However, to take your Vorephila example, if someone is consenting to something that will cause major disability or even death then the other individual is duty bound as a decent member of the human race to make them think about it, and likely seek psychological treatment. Not only do sane human beings not actually seek to be eaten alive for real, but there is a definate psychological and possibly even physical affect on the "eater".

I suppose I would define my feelings as "Consent between two adult human beings should allow anything that does not prevent that consent from being later withdrawn." You cannot kill, disable mentally or physically, or perminantly imprison another human being no matter how much they want you too and expect to be allowed to do it within the law, because it opens such obvious paths for people to murder or imprison others and just say they wanted it.

 

[JoJo]

Yes. Sometimes, even adults do not have a capacity to make an informed decision, due to various possibilites. We accept that children can't make certain decisions for themselves, so it seems logical that adults should also be limited sometimes. For example, I don't think anyone is able to consent to being killed and eaten, as someone who would evidently has some mental issues which they need to have therapy for.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

As long as no laws are broken. Sure. Go for it.

Cannibalism? There's a law for that.

Pedophilia? There's a law for that.

Incest? There's a law for that.

Backgammon? There's no law for that.

i don't know that just using the law as a guideline is appropriate, either, as in many places oral sex, anal sex, or even positions other than missionary are all illegal. otherwise, i agree in spirit with your statement.

OT: really, the issue here is more about who those people are, rather than what they're doing. as long as their outside lives aren't going to negatively impact those around them due to their sexual relationship, it is fine.