Poll: Consent - Is there a line?

[Serenityrade]

To reply briefly, you may do as you please.

Insolong as you can later choose not to.

Committing suicide is to be prevented by force. Committing murder is to be prevented by force.

Cost/benefit goes over uncertain comphrension - it is an assessment of reality. You can choose to kill yourself, so as to prevent yourself from feeling pain. But ultimately the detrimental effect of killing yourself is measurably infinite proportionate to the greatest possible effect of you being alive at the following point.

Any positive or negative aspect is burned from you. An abyss. That is all. Society will perform judgement on you if you harm yourself.

You will be protected from your own actions by society if you make them public and society does not wish you to perform them where it is permissible.

If your actions are not permissible, you will be judged and you will be punished.

Judgement is also a punishment.

You should be permitted to exercise your judgement independently irrespective of situation in society.

You cannot say it is wrong or right to harm, only that it is right or wrong to harm you.

You, also, have no dominion over another that has not given it unto you.

The value of the choice is proportionate to the value of all choices made from that source.

 

[Dys]

We don't give the green light to suicide, self harm or drug use to individuals, and couples are implicitly restricted to the same freedoms. It's simply unfair for a couple to do things if there is some other toll on society.

 

[Icehearted]

A person that is mentally sound would not consent to being eaten alive, at least not under any reasonable circumstances. Consent by someone that is mentally impaired is not consent, therefore the question OP poses is invalid. A better example would be helpful. Something this extreme only implies mental incapacitation and therefore impaired judgement.

 

[Pyrokinesis]

The question is too vague. If its incest and both are actually concenting on good terms then yea sure w/e. If its plotting murder on someone else or anything else that would infringe the rights of someone else then no. Where you stick your junk is one thing, but whenever the word forced is involved its bad. And yes you can force death apon someone, so that counts.

 

[Craorach]

If someone offers themselves up as a food substance. Then the law shouldn't really be able to stop them. The same goes with incest.

If both parties fully consent. Then who are we to judge?

I could be wrong but I believe the act of consuming human flesh has an effect on the consumers brain chemistry that makes them crave more and can lead to severe mental illness.

 

[jamesworkshop]

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.

Concent isn't really an issue, it is much like a contract in that it cannot allow you or force you to do anything illegal.

I could not for instance tell you that I give you my concent for you to hire an assassin to kill me, I could say it but no court would accept it, you still would have broken the law.


Giving concent cannot overide the fact that in every country I can think of canabalism is illegal.

Basically their is no contradiction between concent and the law

 

[Custard_Angel]

SNIP

I disagree in that you're holding up the people who made those laws to have been any more enlightened than we are.

I don't particularly think any of those (disregarding pedophilia simply for the definitions) should be illegal if the only people effected are two consenting adults.

If someone offers themselves up as a food substance. Then the law shouldn't really be able to stop them. The same goes with incest.

If both parties fully consent. Then who are we to judge?

I would say that cannibalism counts as a crime against humanity.

If its true for the Fallout universe, its true for this universe.

 

[darthotaku]

well I think any deaths caused by consentual sex should count as assisted suicide if the person knows it will kill them and death by misadventure if it was just really, really dangerous. but other than that, I don't care if a goat is involved so long as it says yes first.

 

[Evidencebased]

well I think any deaths caused by consentual sex should count as assisted suicide if the person knows it will kill them and death by misadventure if it was just really, really dangerous. but other than that, I don't care if a goat is involved so long as it says yes first.

Every goat I've asked never seems to care; they just say "meh."

But back on-topic, I voted "yes" because the poll asked if it's ever our business, and I could think of at least one situation where it is (like the ones listed above.) Two consenting adults doing a little spanking? Knock yourselves out. Spanking each other with remote controls set to launch nukes? Um, no. Playing a drinking game? Sounds fun. Playing a drinking game with weaponized smallpox? Sounds like something I might object to...

 

[jamesmax]

I would agree that 'what two consenting adults do in private' is no-one else's business, on the condition it doesn't have a lasting effect on anyone else.

A man being eaten alive definitely has an effect on anyone that cares about him, making it their business. It is the law's job in this case to protect them from his hedonism.

ok im sorry this has nathing to do with the post

WHAT is that runing red eyed thing you have for a pic! it looks awesome!!!

 

[New Troll]

Two consenting adults decide they wish to have sex climaxing with a nuclear explosion. I personally feel that's everyone in thier city's business. I know I'd like to know.

 

[GLo Jones]

I would agree that 'what two consenting adults do in private' is no-one else's business, on the condition it doesn't have a lasting effect on anyone else.

A man being eaten alive definitely has an effect on anyone that cares about him, making it their business. It is the law's job in this case to protect them from his hedonism.

ok im sorry this has nathing to do with the post

WHAT is that runing red eyed thing you have for a pic! it looks awesome!!!

It's a Tapir [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapir] of some kind, probably a Malayan Tapir [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Tapir]. They're literally the best animal.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Giving concent cannot overide the fact that in every country I can think of canabalism is illegal.

Basically their is no contradiction between concent and the law

Perhaps, but the point of the thread isn't so much to answer it from a legal standpoint, but to ask: what do you think? If you had the power to change the law, would you change it so that mutual consent has greater legal authority (as long as the crime was relatively victimless outside of the consenters)?

 

[Hive Mind]

We use the following rule on our planet:

"What one or more would do in private should all involved and affected be consenting, adult, of sound mind, acting under their own free will, absent of coercion or threat, and void of any and all mind altering drugs or substances, is of their own business."

 

[Verlander]

If you break the law, you break the law. Most laws aren't morally correct, but they exist.

I think that what people willingly want to do in terms of sex is fine, but the concept of consent is tricky-euthanasia is illegal in most countries, which is how cannibal victims should be considered if it is voluntary, but that lack of proof or reliability is the very reason that it remains illegal-it's a slippery slope.

If it's restricted to carnal pleasure, in which both people are able to argue for it post-action, then it's ok in my book. If someone doesn't survive the experience, or was forced into the act, then it's a bad thing. Like rape, or bestiality.