RE: Illegal to consent to sex?

RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

hematitan -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/5/2011 10:17:05 PM)
It's a difficult situation, I think. I believe in respecting people's sexual autonomy, but I definitely see the necessity of having laws to protect people who can't offer informed consent. It's very possible that Alan does like his relationship, but I'm more wondering about the man he's with. I seriously question the wisdom, at the very least, of someone who has sex with a person who may be unable to understand what's going on, make an informed choice, or offer true consent. That seems very skeevy to me, and it's the burden of the person who's more mature or who is more mentally capable to consider the potential for harm. If Alan were in a relationship with someone with similar mental capabilities, I don't think I'd have a problem with that -- they'd be on equal footing. But I don't see an indication that that's the case.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/5/2011 10:55:50 PM)
Being aware of the consequences hardly seems like a prerequisite to me since people make stupid decisions every day (although perhaps that too should be assessed as to whether it disqualifies such people from being permitted to have legal consent). It's easy just to pick out his IQ or learning disability to substantiate the removal of the capacity for consent, but an actual dissection of that process would mean determining what acts/thoughts/statuses would be considered "below the threshold of autonomous consent", and then you'd have to start tossing a lot of other folks into the same box. To the degree that one is able to construct and believe in a consistent structure of happiness, one should be permitted to pursue it. Arguments from the perspective of protection, though well-intended, are inevitably flawed (if not hypocritical).

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/5/2011 11:24:37 PM)
~FR Its the difference between a legal definition.. and a moral one. Legally speaking.. its about informed consent. Does Alan have enough understanding about sex, the consequences, and the danger signs to give informed consent? Mental impairment, lest I checked, was mild at 50 - 70 to moderate at 30 - 50. At 48, someone is unable to give any kind of informed consent, legally. Morally? Wow, thats a loaded one. I think the court was right to act on behalf of Alan. The reason quite simple. He cannot give informed consent. While you may see this as the same as a legal definition... think about it. How often do you give informed consent for various sex acts to your partners ... or gain that consent? Even though they may be illegal and/or potentially harmful? It isnt Alan's motives, or desires I question... but those whom he would be involved with. This is a potential abuse in the making. No court is going into the bedrooms to determine if any acts are harmful, they dont have that right. What they are saying is... Alan doesnt have the ability to determine that for himself... so the court must.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/5/2011 11:35:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It isnt Alan's motives, or desires I question... but those whom he would be involved with. This is a potential abuse in the making What does that even mean? I'm always kind of baffled with the notion that a disparate balance of certain traits leads immediately to the presumption of someone trying to "take advantage of" someone else. The entire structure of D/s is on flimsy ground based on that idea. We could even start mandating that emotionally addictive people not be permitted to engage in relationships with more emotionally aloof people because perhaps the former cannot help their level of devotion and will be made to do things that they wouldn't normally do (this is a big reason people tend to have suspicions about relationships with big age gaps). Fines for anyone engaging in a rebound relationship to (double for those who engaged in it with the rebounder; triple, if they knew the other was rebounding). The idea that we do a service to a human by robbing them of a source of happiness because of the idea of moral protection is morally suspect. It's actually a superimposition of our own morals onto theirs.

porcelaine -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 12:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero What does that even mean? I'm always kind of baffled with the notion that a disparate balance of certain traits leads immediately to the presumption of someone trying to "take advantage of" someone else. Greetings, And just because you don't believe it is so invalidates that truth for you but not for others. Exploitation happens and oftentimes goes unnoticed because its hasn't impacted the party scrutinizing its existence. Bring the subject close to home and you'd have a different response. quote: We could even start mandating that emotionally addictive people not be permitted to engage in relationships with more emotionally aloof people because perhaps the former cannot help their level of devotion and will be made to do things that they wouldn't normally do (this is a big reason people tend to have suspicions about relationships with big age gaps). Your example doesn't support the theory you're proposing. The reasons people have suspicions is due to numerous situations that had an unfortunate outcome. This doesn't imply that everyone who engages in the behavior mentioned has nefarious intentions, but it doesn't rule out the reality that some do as well. And for the record, most people that need that level of restriction are often opposed to intervention. quote: The idea that we do a service to a human by robbing them of a source of happiness because of the idea of moral protection is morally suspect. It's actually a superimposition of our own morals onto theirs. No, I believe the courts feel they're acting in the individual's best interest. Sometimes the only boogeyman people need to be protected from is the one staring them in the mirror. Namaste, ~porcelaine

BitaTruble -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 12:18:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Do you feel that the court has any business stating that Alan is unable to consent? Interesting question and one to which I gave quite a bit of consideration, but, ultimately, my answer is no, because the court only assumes he is unable to consent based on his IQ. IQ is a measurement of aptitude, not ability. Alan may very well have the ability to consent but simply not have the ability to test well. I lean towards the benefit of the doubt in Alan's favor on this one. quote: And under what circumstances should the courts rule that people are not allowed to consent to legal acts they state they want to consent to? When they are not legal adults or if can be clearly shown that they do not have the ability to consent. Assumptions based on testing just isn't good enough to deny such a basic human right.

GreedyTop -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 12:27:21 AM)
Bita :) many fond regards to you both... and I am torn on this subject.. I totally agree on your stated points, but I also see valid points from others that argue the other side. Tough call.

BitaTruble -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 1:26:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop Bita :) many fond regards to you both... and I am torn on this subject.. I totally agree on your stated points, but I also see valid points from others that argue the other side. Tough call. Hiyaz Sweetstuff: A fond regard back to you! I agree.. it's a tough call and I see .. well, some of the valid points but nothing that outweighs the individuals liberty. Just an opinion of course. I finally decided to put myself into the position of mother and imagine it was one of my children whom the courts decided weren't bright enough to find their bliss and what I want for my children more than anything is for them to be happy. Alan enjoys his sexual relationship. I don't think that the few meager points between 48 and 50 is enough to deny him his chance at happiness. I don't believe there is an arbitrary number that can be pulled out of a hat and force one to submit to a government standard when it comes to personal intimate relationships. Why 48? Why not 47 or 49? Is 49 IQ okay? 50? 51? It just.. hmm.. bothers me. From the article, this whole thing started because of Alan's vigorous sex drive. That sort of gets a so what from me? Who cares if he has the sex drive of a rabbit or a wet noodle.. it is his sex drive and he enjoys himself. As for whether or not he'll transfer STD's or some such to a third party.. we'll, he'd have to catch an STD first, the other party would have to also deny their own personal responsibility to use a condom (assuming that Alan doesn't use a condom or that his current partner doesn't use one). There are just too many what if's to my liking for the court to intervene. What if nothing bad happened? What if Alan and his partner are just two guys who are enjoying what they do and not hurting anyone? The court system should be dealing with facts and not assumptions and with current reality, not some future unknown worst case scenario. There isn't black and white/right and wrong answers for these kind of situations so, generally, I will side with the individual over an impersonal government body.

GreedyTop -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 1:29:15 AM)
ok.. I agree with your posting. (how is life treating you?..) ETA: I am currently reading a fiction book by Tess Gerritson, called The Bone Garden in which OWH is featured prominently.. I started it tonight, about 7pm.. and by 1am, when I left work, I was more than 3/4 of the3 way through it...

SourandSweet -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:10:38 AM)
Ok gotta go shopping, so will be brief here. It's important to remember that laws around ability to consent are there primarily to protect the vulnerable. It's also important to remember that this article is in the Daily Fail, so will be limited in the information it is giving us (don't have time to research for further facts on the case right now). An unanswered question for me is why the authorities became involved. Was that particular relationship somehow harmful to Alan? Was his partner abusive, was he spending all Alan's money on coke or cider? Or, it could be that his primary carer, or social worker, or other involved party was homophobic and pressed this case. Although his IQ is extremely low it also states in the article that he had moderate learning difficulties. Now, I've worked with people who were unable to live independantly due to their LD (wheras it appears Alan is doing so) but still had relationships, and these relationships were supported by those caring for them. There are too many unanswered questions here, but I suspect that if the High Court ruled that he is not permitted to enagage in intercourse with his partner than there may be stuff going on which we are not privy too. Re: BDSM, well I think that if people are open to be exploited then there needs to be protection in place. However, I've known perfectly sane, intelligent subs to be exploited by doms. I guess we've all heard the horror stories? Toodle pip - off to spend money now! :-)

xssve -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:14:34 AM)
I call bullshit: a low IQ places one at increased risk for exploitation and the state or relevant authorizes thereof have every right to vet their partner, monitor their health, etc., as they are for any legal guardian, sexual activity is a basic human right in my mind, and this person is still human. This is the state imposing non-consensual celibacy - is there an IQ limit for being considered human now?

kalikshama -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:47:55 AM)
Here's another article: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/with+judge+rules/4231131/story.html

SourandSweet -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:41:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Here's another article: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/with+judge+rules/4231131/story.html Ahh! Thanks for that. The Daily Fail 'forgot' to mention this bit: The Judge 'said that the psychiatrist thought Alan "believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush," and that "sex could give you spots or measles." On that basis, the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education "in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity." ' So there ya go. Still not ideal by any means, but I guess if no one had done anything and he'd caught HIV and passed it on people would be asking why he hadn't been monitored in some way. At least the Judge is attempting to make this a temporary situation. :-)

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:59:49 AM)
Admitting all that doesnt get hits on the internet. [;)] Much more sensational to leave it out.

Palliata -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 6:28:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr Do you feel that the court has any business stating that Alan is unable to consent? Yes, I do. I'm gathering from the article that the man has been tested sufficiently for it to be known that the man could absolutely be considered a potential health risk to others at some point. It was very clearly mentioned that the man doesn't have the mental competence to understand sexual education. Should the man become infected with HIV, while not having the competency to understand safe sex practices, he could literally become a public health risk. The article doesn't say specifically that he is in a monogamous sexual relationship, so that may be part of why the system is involved in the first place. Presumably his partners would be of normal IQ - if they are incapable of safe sex themselves aren't they responsible for whatever diseases they might acquire? It takes two people consenting to have sex, after all, and if neither chose to use protection that is far from the business of government. quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Being aware of the consequences hardly seems like a prerequisite to me since people make stupid decisions every day (although perhaps that too should be assessed as to whether it disqualifies such people from being permitted to have legal consent). It's easy just to pick out his IQ or learning disability to substantiate the removal of the capacity for consent, but an actual dissection of that process would mean determining what acts/thoughts/statuses would be considered "below the threshold of autonomous consent", and then you'd have to start tossing a lot of other folks into the same box. To the degree that one is able to construct and believe in a consistent structure of happiness, one should be permitted to pursue it. Arguments from the perspective of protection, though well-intended, are inevitably flawed (if not hypocritical). This is very true - as I implied in my post, to be logically consistent about it you would need to start altering the decision making rights of a LOT of people if you want to do this. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR Its the difference between a legal definition.. and a moral one. Legally speaking.. its about informed consent. Does Alan have enough understanding about sex, the consequences, and the danger signs to give informed consent? Mental impairment, lest I checked, was mild at 50 - 70 to moderate at 30 - 50. At 48, someone is unable to give any kind of informed consent, legally. Morally? Wow, thats a loaded one. I think the court was right to act on behalf of Alan. The reason quite simple. He cannot give informed consent. While you may see this as the same as a legal definition... think about it. How often do you give informed consent for various sex acts to your partners ... or gain that consent? Even though they may be illegal and/or potentially harmful? It isnt Alan's motives, or desires I question... but those whom he would be involved with. This is a potential abuse in the making. No court is going into the bedrooms to determine if any acts are harmful, they dont have that right. What they are saying is... Alan doesnt have the ability to determine that for himself... so the court must. Why exactly do we presume the court qualified to decide who is and isn't capable of making decisions to increase their own happiness? quote: ORIGINAL: xssve This is the state imposing non-consensual celibacy - is there an IQ limit for being considered human now? Couldn't have summed it up better myself.

osf -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 6:45:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Being aware of the consequences hardly seems like a prerequisite to me since people make stupid decisions every day (although perhaps that too should be assessed as to whether it disqualifies such people from being permitted to have legal consent). It's easy just to pick out his IQ or learning disability to substantiate the removal of the capacity for consent, but an actual dissection of that process would mean determining what acts/thoughts/statuses would be considered "below the threshold of autonomous consent", and then you'd have to start tossing a lot of other folks into the same box. To the degree that one is able to construct and believe in a consistent structure of happiness, one should be permitted to pursue it. Arguments from the perspective of protection, though well-intended, are inevitably flawed (if not hypocritical). but can he make any other kind of decisions? life isn't always fair, having an iq of 48 isn't fair and if like a child he has to be looked after then those looking out for him have a say in his conduct it's sorta like motorcycle helmet laws, we as a society have decided we are not going it leave you lying on the side of the road decomposing. we are going to pick your injured ass up and cart you to medical care, in return you have to take actions to ameliorate possible injury. this is another case in which society doesn't allow the individual to make stupid decisions no matter how high his iq is i will assume england a land of progressive laws has somebody that will champion his rights and as it's in the news there, he will have every opportunity to pursue those rights

RapierFugue -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 6:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Admitting all that doesnt get hits on the internet. [;)] Much more sensational to leave it out. The Daily Mail (for those who don't know) is about the most right-wing British daily newspaper; their record on "accuracy" is worse than useless, and their usual stance ("foreigners out! everything gives you cancer!") is made all the funnier for me by the fact I receive a regular RSS feed from a “clinical stats in the media” section of the NHS ... in it, every single media story about Health or Healthcare which relies on quoting "facts" or “studies” is taken apart, in a very clinical (heh) and neutral tone. Most newspapers drop the occasional clanger, most usually by extrapolating data waaaaaay beyond its actual context or sample, but the Daily Mail regularly goes much, much further. What makes it funny (well I find it funny) is that the articles I get don't have any sort of opinion or editorial attached to them, but merely try to explain the research in correct context, in as plain a language as possible, give the sample sizes and statistical numbers, and then reprint the original research's conclusions, which are often (almost always) much less sensational than the newspaper's "announcement". The Guardian and The Independent seem to do pretty well, the tabloids aren't great (especially The Sun, although given its readership that's hardly surprising) but the worst offender, time and again, is the Daily Mail; if everything they said caused cancer actually did, in the numbers they claim, we'd all be dead before our 5th birthday :) [image]http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/gosteelers.gif[/image]

SourandSweet -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:00:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue The Guardian and The Independent seem to do pretty well, the tabloids aren't great (especially The Sun, although given its readership that's hardly surprising) but the worst offender, time and again, is the Daily Mail; if everything they said caused cancer actually did, in the numbers they claim, we'd all be dead before our 5th birthday :) [image]http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/gosteelers.gif[/image] Or, to put it another way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Palliata -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:03:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Being aware of the consequences hardly seems like a prerequisite to me since people make stupid decisions every day (although perhaps that too should be assessed as to whether it disqualifies such people from being permitted to have legal consent). It's easy just to pick out his IQ or learning disability to substantiate the removal of the capacity for consent, but an actual dissection of that process would mean determining what acts/thoughts/statuses would be considered "below the threshold of autonomous consent", and then you'd have to start tossing a lot of other folks into the same box. To the degree that one is able to construct and believe in a consistent structure of happiness, one should be permitted to pursue it. Arguments from the perspective of protection, though well-intended, are inevitably flawed (if not hypocritical). but can he make any other kind of decisions? it's sorta like motorcycle helmet laws, we as a society have decided we are not going it leave you lying on the side of the road decomposing. we are going to pick your injured ass up and cart you to medical care, in return you have to take actions to ameliorate possible injury. Not to go off-topic, but the idea behind helmet laws is also well and truly fucked.

osf -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:08:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Palliata quote: ORIGINAL: osf quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Being aware of the consequences hardly seems like a prerequisite to me since people make stupid decisions every day (although perhaps that too should be assessed as to whether it disqualifies such people from being permitted to have legal consent). It's easy just to pick out his IQ or learning disability to substantiate the removal of the capacity for consent, but an actual dissection of that process would mean determining what acts/thoughts/statuses would be considered "below the threshold of autonomous consent", and then you'd have to start tossing a lot of other folks into the same box. To the degree that one is able to construct and believe in a consistent structure of happiness, one should be permitted to pursue it. Arguments from the perspective of protection, though well-intended, are inevitably flawed (if not hypocritical). but can he make any other kind of decisions? it's sorta like motorcycle helmet laws, we as a society have decided we are not going it leave you lying on the side of the road decomposing. we are going to pick your injured ass up and cart you to medical care, in return you have to take actions to ameliorate possible injury. Not to go off-topic, but the idea behind helmet laws is also well and truly fucked. no one will stop you from riding your motorcycle in ethiopia of course you may want to wear a helmet to ward off the stray bullet

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875