RE: Illegal to consent to sex?

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

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

Message

leadership527 -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 3:47:35 PM)
Normally Ishtar I find you a refreshing voice of reason. But in this case I disagree with you wildly. My world doesn't exist in black and whites. Sadly, I find myself encountering lots of shades of grey. In addition, I am not willing to say "Hey yeah, do whatever under any circumstances so long as you don't hurt anyone else." Sorry about this, but a part of living in a society is finding some sort of equilibrium with everyone else's sensibilities. And for me, there are WAY too many things that would fall under the umbrella of "anything you want" and "any circumstances" for me to make blanket statements about them -- particularly not if I'm going to be picking up the tab for damages later on. ~Jeff

littlewonder -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 3:48:04 PM)
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/with+judge+rules/4231131/story.html This article gives more information about the situation. Him and his partner lived in a home together provided by council which to me sounds sort of like a nursing home for the mentally disabled and that Alan had made lewd gestures towards children but charges were never pressed which is how this all came about. Imo it sounds as though he is not aware of where lines are drawn and he really doesn't know the repercussions. It sounds to me as if from the article that the courts made the right decision in closely monitoring him especially if he's living in a home provided by the council in the first place.

LadyRian -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 3:53:43 PM)
Yes, but it's partially funny! Everyone knows we scientist type geek girls have no sense of humour! [sm=book.gif]

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 3:59:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 My world doesn't exist in black and whites. Sadly, I find myself encountering lots of shades of grey. In addition, I am not willing to say "Hey yeah, do whatever under any circumstances so long as you don't hurt anyone else." Thank you Jeff, coming from you that means a lot... I'm not suggesting that the world is black and white, and that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anybody else directly. Society will always have norms of what they deem acceptable behavior and what not, simple because we interact in groups and our behavior effects other's even if it doesn't harm them directly. I am however, questioning why it became the acceptable social norm that it's society's responsibility to protect people against themselves, no matter the cost it has on our freedom's. In the case of Alan, there is no demonstrated harm that's coming to anybody, only the potential of harm, yet most of the people on this tread seem to regard it as a given that Alan should be protected against all potential harm that could come to him, at the cost of his freedom as an individual. It's that gut level reaction of it seemingly having become self-evident in the public's mind that people should be protected against themselves, especially when that's what the courts say should happen, that I'm questioning more than anything.

subtlebutterfly -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr As long as it's culturally acceptable to force people who aren't harming anybody else to do what we want because we disapprove, the courts will continue to rule that they're justified in infringing in people's rights. Courts are never that which sets a cultural trend, public opinion is, and the courts lag behind in following the socially acceptable norm of the time. You are wrong. You're basing that statement on the US court system. The court system in the US and the UK are not comparable. The system of the ECHR is completely different from the US one, and to be honest it doesn't give a rats ass about public opinion. The courts do not go by the public opinion that swerves from time to time. Courts lag behind YES because changes are supposed to happen slowly. I could go on and on about the pros of courts lagging behind, as well as the cons but the bottom line is that it is better and more secure for courts to lag behind. Like I said it has already been ruled that even if a person can harm themselves it does NOT justify a states interference. The general rule is that it's NONE of a States business what a person does in their private lives, unless it falls within the exception stated in para 2 of Article 8 of the convention. Furthermore it has ruled that the margin of appreciation has been found to be narrow regarding interferences in the intimate area of an individual's sexual life - giving this particular human right of an individual an even broader protection. Since when have sado-masochistic activities been considered acceptable by the public opinion? Yet the court does take notice of that and a person engaging in S&M is therefore protected by Article 8 of the european convention on human rights and in regards to that, the State cannot interfere. Therefore, there is nobody justifying infringing rights. People are always going to insist on the state interfering when they see something as immoral. However, the courts do not work that way.

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebutterfly quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr As long as it's culturally acceptable to force people who aren't harming anybody else to do what we want because we disapprove, the courts will continue to rule that they're justified in infringing in people's rights. Courts are never that which sets a cultural trend, public opinion is, and the courts lag behind in following the socially acceptable norm of the time. You are wrong. You're basing that statement on the US court system. Considering that I've only lived in the US for a little under 2 years now, and know relatively little about the court system here in comparison to the Belgian one, where I was born and raised, I don't see how that's even possible. I'd like to believe what you're saying, but from my point of view, it's just not the case. The courts in Europe deem it quite acceptable to infringe on people's rights to engage in risky behavior to protect them from themselves, seeing that there are a plethora of laws on the books in Europe, in the countries that I'm familiar with, that have no other purpose than to protect people from themselves. Could you provide me a link to the article and paragraph you're referring to?

angelikaJ -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:18:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick Well my friend, if my physical age was 40, yet my mental age was that of someone in the single digits, then yes, I would say you should be prevented from engaging in such activity. An adult with an IQ of 48 has the mental decision-making skills of a person in the single digits. Cali There is an issue with IQ tests, however. 48 is very close to 50 and 50 is considered to be "moderate". People do test differently depending on various factors including, what they had for breakfast or lunch the day of the test, hydration level, who administers the test among many other variables. I know someone who's official number was a 12. That was simply not possible given that he was ambulatory, verbal, could feed, dress and partially bathe himself, as well as followed verbal cues...when he chose to [:D] . IQ tests are fallible as are the people who give them. I worked for an agency in Florida that served the developmentally disabled, and we had several marriages among the people we served: 3 that I know of. I worked in a residential group home in the state where I live now, with someone who was severely affected by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. She is now married and has a baby. In the Canadian article it mentions that Alan believed you could get measles from sex. That may sound like an appalling lack of knowledge, but when you think about it, it really isn't. It does show that he has an awareness that you can get diseases through sex, even if he doesn't know which ones. The problem is: how do you protect Alan's right to have a sexual relationship, and protect him from the possibility of exploitation?

Phoenixpower -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:30:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/with+judge+rules/4231131/story.html This article gives more information about the situation. Him and his partner lived in a home together provided by council which to me sounds sort of like a nursing home for the mentally disabled and that Alan had made lewd gestures towards children but charges were never pressed which is how this all came about. Imo it sounds as though he is not aware of where lines are drawn and he really doesn't know the repercussions. It sounds to me as if from the article that the courts made the right decision in closely monitoring him especially if he's living in a home provided by the council in the first place. I like on this article that there the judge seems to have said to provide alan thie sex education in the hope that he gains the mental capacity at some point...which then sounds like a potential temporary decision with which i feel more comfortable in his case. However, red flaggs come up for me in regards to his gestures towards kids which were briefly mentioned, as far as I remember, which should - at least that was the case on my final placement - prompt the officials to look into alans past, to see if there might be some interesting skeletons hidden...

leadership527 -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr In the case of Alan, there is no demonstrated harm that's coming to anybody, only the potential of harm If this is a true statement then I'd be in agreement with you. But I almost feel like I would've needed to be in the courtroom to know if it's true or not. This has ALL the earmarks of one of those highly complicated, fuzzy, and nuanced situations. In my mind, this particular case could go either way but I'd need to know A LOT more about it to decide. In the absence of such information, I choose to assume that those involved did a professional and humane job.

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 4:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 If this is a true statement then I'd be in agreement with you. But I almost feel like I would've needed to be in the courtroom to know if it's true or not. This has ALL the earmarks of one of those highly complicated, fuzzy, and nuanced situations. In my mind, this particular case could go either way but I'd need to know A LOT more about it to decide. In the absence of such information, I choose to assume that those involved did a professional and humane job. Maybe I should have clarified Jeff, but I thought that what I was trying to say was clear from the entire statement: quote: In the case of Alan, there is no demonstrated harm that's coming to anybody, only the potential of harm, yet most of the people on this tread seem to regard it as a given that Alan should be protected against all potential harm that could come to him, at the cost of his freedom as an individual. I'm not saying that it's impossible that there was actually demonstrated harm provided to the court... But based on the information the people on this thread have to go on... there was no actual harm demonstrated to the court, and the decision of the judge was based on the fact that Alan didn't understand the implications sex could possible have. And yet, with that information in mind, with the statement of the judge indicating that Alan was not protected from actual, but only from potential harm... the public opinion on this tread STILL tends to lean towards deeming it perfectly moral to protect Alan from himself... It's THAT which I find disturbing... the ease at which most people seem to justify using force to "protect" other people from themselves, or from the "potential" of future harm. The ease at which society justifies the use of force to take away people's rights "for their own good". The outcome in this particular case is of less relevance to me, and it's merely what created the line of questioning in my mind. I deeply regret even posting the link on this topic, instead of making the question based on a hypothetical situation, because it causes the debate to go to a debate about what specifics involve this particular case, instead of creating a debate about the morality of "protecting people from acts that cause no harm, for their own good" like I had hoped for.

leadership527 -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr It's THAT which I find disturbing... the ease at which most people seem to justify using force to "protect" other people from themselves, or from the "potential" of future harm. The ease at which society justifies the use of force to take away people's rights "for their own good". So you're noting that people are hypocrites? This is news? Take some heart... the answers you get on an internet discussion board are, by definition, more extreme than the answers you'd get from those same people in real life faced with a real life situation. It's easy to be extreme when you don't actually have to face the consequences of your decisions. ~Jeff

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 So you're noting that people are hypocrites? This is news? Take some heart... the answers you get on an internet discussion board are, by definition, more extreme than the answers you'd get from those same people in real life faced with a real life situation. It's easy to be extreme when you don't actually have to face the consequences of your decisions. ~Jeff Not noticing... exploring. And I disagree that in regards to this subject that the opinions presented on this board are more extreme than those of people offline. I've talked offline about this subject with far more people than have so far posted on this tread, and an overwhelmingly majority has been in the "of course it's okay to use force to protect people from potentially harming themselves" camp. I was curious if it would be as extreme on here, and expected at least some people around these parts to hold the opposite opinion, but I'm still shocked at how many seem to think that it's perfectly moral to disallow people from doing things simple because they don't feel comfortable with it... Especially seeing how sketchy the public opinion often is in regards to certain BDSM acts, I had expected a far more openminded attitude here than has so far been presented.

CalifChick -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick Well my friend, if my physical age was 40, yet my mental age was that of someone in the single digits, then yes, I would say you should be prevented from engaging in such activity. An adult with an IQ of 48 has the mental decision-making skills of a person in the single digits. I know someone who's official number was a 12. That was simply not possible given that he was ambulatory, verbal, could feed, dress and partially bathe himself, as well as followed verbal cues...when he chose to [:D] . IQ tests are fallible as are the people who give them. Tests for malingering are numerous, easy to obtain, and mostly difficult to fake. Anyone given an IQ of 12 who was not picked up out of a cave was given it by someone who clearly was not doing their job. Yes, they are as fallible as the people who give them. The word "moderate" in the IQ scale does not necessarily mean what it means in other contexts. People with a moderate IQ, if they have picked up adequate skills for daily living, can usually live in a supervised group home. It does not mean they have adult decision-making abilities. Cali

leadership527 -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:17:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr And I disagree that in regards to this subject that the opinions presented on this board are more extreme than those of people offline I didn't say "offline". I said "in a real life situation". It's needing to face the consequences that changes it from dogmatic soap box speeches to actual thought. In this case, it'd be looking at Alan's tearful face as he pleaded to be allowed to share a life with the person he loved which would cause people to ponder a bit further. By the way, any sociologist would tell you that looking for open minded opinions in minority groups that see themselves as oppressed is a hopeless proposition. You'd THINK it goes that way but it does not. Instead, the defensive mechanisms kick in and it becomes imperative to define "us" versus "them" which means we need to get some serious judgements going. Carol comments frequently that her straight friends were only mildly horrified when they found out she was lesbian. But years later when she decided she liked men afterall, her lesbian friends were quit a bit less understanding.

osf -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 5:26:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr quote: ORIGINAL: osf 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 How does the fact that society infringes on people's rights to make their own choices proof that it's ethically to do so? The fact that motorcycle riders aren't allowed to make their own choices because they could potentially harm themselves doesn't proof in the least that it's ethical to prohibit Alan from having sex because he could potentially harm himself. All it does is show that it's become the norm in our society to babysit people and force them to be safe, even if we have to infringe on their rights to do so. because this society has made the choice to pick up the injured and take them to receive medical care at considerable cost in money and resources and in return it requires you to lesson possible injury different societies have different out looks on rights, in germany it's the right to drive as fast as you want, here it's the right to own guns should you be allowed to have the right to drive with out insurance? but this is far from the original question in a sense he is child like and in this case the state may be acting as his guardian, at least he is having his day in court and I bet the final verdict isn't in yet

DesFIP -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 6:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr but I'm still shocked at how many seem to think that it's perfectly moral to disallow people from doing things simple because they don't feel comfortable with it... That's quite the arrogant statement that we're all for legal rules simply because we're uncomfortable with it. Many of us have family members with various issues, it isn't being squeamish but needing to protect fragile loved ones. It has nothing to do with bdsm and everything to do with taking care of our dependents.

DesFIP -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 6:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP If someone, whether a parent or the state, has guardianship because the person is incapable of consenting or understanding what it means to consent, then it's legal to prevent pregnancy. More important than the relatively small number of developmentally delayed to which such a precedence may apply, are the rising numbers of elderly with dementia. Are they capable of consenting to sex? Should they be prevented from having it? What if an adult child has conservatorship and is upset that their parent is having relations with another patient? Should they have the right to demand that the nursing home prevent this? Should they morally be justified in moving a parent who is accustomed to the home to another one in order to break up such a relationship? AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH! It's a moral maze! :) My father is almost 84 and has dementia. Legally he's capable of marrying. Which means we have to be watchful for anyone who wants to marry an elderly, wealthy man and hurry him on in order to be a rich widow. It's just about impossible in NY state these days to get conservatorship so we can't use that to protect him from himself. And considering he proposes marriage to waitresses on a daily basis, this is a real problem. We've had to threaten charging women with elder abuse in the past but the risk always exists. He isn't capable of thinking about the consequences of his actions. Or even remembering them ten minutes later.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 6:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr but I'm still shocked at how many seem to think that it's perfectly moral to disallow people from doing things simple because they don't feel comfortable with it... That's quite the arrogant statement that we're all for legal rules simply because we're uncomfortable with it. Many of us have family members with various issues, it isn't being squeamish but needing to protect fragile loved ones. It has nothing to do with bdsm and everything to do with taking care of our dependents. I have to agree with Ishtarr in that respect; due to my work I know that relatives sometimes do feel uncomfortable about letting their relatives live an adult life when they want to do so; one of the married couples I worked with (these days he sadly is a widower) both have/had down syndrome, was very negative influenced from his parents as they did not want them to get married and about two years before she died they tried to challenge him when he visited them at home, to get a divorce. It wasn't a pretty sight how they interfered and it never got to a divorce as we arranged marriage counselling for them instead. She did not understand anything really by then as her dementia worsened during that time but over time they continued their relationship as usual until death took them apart. I never got it what their issue was that they got married as I believe that I would be glad, when my child would have a disability, when this kid would still be able to lead a normal life as much as possible. I simply prefer appropriate support for such a situation when necessary than to forbid something which does not necessarily have to get forbidden. My previous employer had also within their policies written that the day we don't allow these clients with learning disabilities to take risks, we own them...and quite frankly, we don't.

DesFIP -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:06:26 PM)
How can someone with dementia give informed consent? They don't understand what they're consenting to nor can they remember it? Nor can marriage counseling be helpful when they have dementia. I need to protect my father from himself in exactly the same way I had to protect my children when very young from themselves. They couldn't be allowed to do things that would cause them harm. Had I allowed them to do those things, I would have been guilty of neglect. Why is that any different simply because the person is of age but mentally incompetent? In fact, if I did allow my father to use the kitchen and burn himself, I would be guilty of just that. So it's correct to protect him from touching matches but not from touching other people?

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:35:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: Ishtarr but I'm still shocked at how many seem to think that it's perfectly moral to disallow people from doing things simple because they don't feel comfortable with it... That's quite the arrogant statement that we're all for legal rules simply because we're uncomfortable with it. Many of us have family members with various issues, it isn't being squeamish but needing to protect fragile loved ones. It has nothing to do with bdsm and everything to do with taking care of our dependents. I never said anything about "all", nor did I say anything about anybody in specific on this board, or any specific circumstance. I said I'm shocked at how many people -people meaning people in general here, not specific to this board- are morally okay with using force to make sure others do not to engage in behavior they don't feel comfortable with. This goes well beyond Alan's case, BDSM, or anything case specific. In our current climate... many people feel it's perfectly justifiable for smoking to become illegal; or that pot is illegal; or that people are mandated to wear seat belts; or to have it mandatory to have regulations on what kind of toilet, insulation, or glass people are allowed to use in their own house; or what kind of house they're allowed to build; what kind of features new products are supposed to have; or to have it illegal to sell a cake you baked at home, or home made lemonade, or any kind of other food to your neighbors... I can go on and on and on... and the list is longer than I'd even have space to post here... But the fact remains... I'm SHOCKED at how normal it's become to deem it perfectly normal, moral and acceptable to use force to not allow people to do things that harm absolutely nobody... out of fear that somebody, somewhere, somehow could POTENTIALLY get hurt...

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625