RE: Illegal to consent to sex?

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

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

Message

SourandSweet -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:46:16 PM)
So much contention! This is so difficult to argue because we don't know all the facts in the case. I'm still inclined to believe that the Judge, having said facts, made the decision he had to. From what I have read he was not happy, or comfortable with this judgement, which implies to me that he felt he had no other viable choice. Ok - let's take an extreme - let's assume Alan is HIV+ but isn't aware enough of the issues around this to use condoms. How would we feel if the court had stated that he had the right to a sex life without state interference? How about if he socialised and slept with others who had a low IQ and LD's. Would we feel that was acceptable? Let's take another extreme. Let's assume that in the past year he had been treated for STD's 6 times. Would we assume the court should do nothing to protect both him and his other partners? What if he'd got numerous women, who also had LD's pregnant because of his lack of awareness. Should the state not intervene? It seems that the state is intervening, but also giving the chance for him to learn about the risk factors, at which point they will stop intervening. I know the High Court. I've spent many hours in it's cold, stone halls (lovely from the outside - bloody nightmare inside). I very much doubt that this case would have gone so far had there not been reason enough. But again - it comes back to the fact that we do not know the facts! :-)

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:46:57 PM)
quote: Why exactly do we presume the court qualified to decide who is and isn't capable of making decisions to increase their own happiness? Who else do we assume can? The person he is having sex with? There is a conflict of interest there. The Drs? Seems that is who the Court is listening too. Alan? With moderate retardation, that seems unlikely. All he seems to know is that it feels good... Something about the second link provided in this thread had me wondering... but I couldnt pin point it until I got home. quote: In June 2009, the town hall began court proceedings to restrict his contact with Kieron on the grounds that he lacked mental capacity, and an interim order was made to that effect. "Since then Alan has been subjected to close supervision to prevent any further sexual activity on his part," except when he is alone in his bedroom. However he told representatives of the official solicitor, who acts in the Court of Protection, to tell the judge "I want to kiss them again." www.montrealgazette.com/life/with+judge+rules/4231131/story.html#ixzz1DF0wN4tv Is no one wondering who "them" are if he had a relationship with only one person, Kieron?

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 7:59:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 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. I misread you. And you're right, I believe many people would feel differently about something like "protecting somebody's rights" versus "using force to make people do what's best for them" depending on whether they are far removed from the case, or it's close to them personally... it's not surprising to me... but still very shocking to know how inconsistent most people are in their own moral and ethical codes, seeing that I personally feel that consistency is one of the most important tenets of morality.

Icarys -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:04:53 PM)
Tons of idiots on CM and around the world in general are having sex, supposedly having the mental understanding of the circumstances and potential outcomes of their actions yet those actions would suggest they in fact might fall under the blanket of less than normal mental capacities...Nobody says anything about that. I say let the guy enjoy himself.

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:10:40 PM)
quote: If you willingly engage in a relationship with a man who wants to tie you up and spank you, there is a clear potential for him to abuse you once you've been tied up... so obviously, we morally can't allow you to engage in such behavior... I really don't get when it became okay in people's minds to take away the freedom of individuals to POTENTIALLY save other individual's from abuse. No, Ishtarr, and you know you are wrong there. The difference between my making a decision to be in such a relationship and Alan being in one is that my mental capabilities are not that of an 8 year old. I know the dangers, I know the risks. Alan does not, unless you have proof otherwise. Who is the "them" Alan told the court he wanted to kiss again? quote: Since when did it became the court's job to act in the individual's best interest? The court's job is to make sure that people who break the State's laws are punished. Courts have no business stepping into people's live to protect them from potential harm. It's not the court's job, or original function, nor should it be. Bullshit. The Courts have many jobs. They also protect children from abuse... and potential abuse. But now you are saying they cannot protect Alan from abuse. Do you know there is no abuse going on? The Courts also have decisions based upon life and death situations. Are you now saying they should just allow some greedy bastard of a son to pull his mother's vent because she signed a health care power of attorney? Even though the Drs insist the vent is just to give her a rest from pneumonia? As I said, the Courts have many jobs, including telling others what to do or not do.

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 8:20:28 PM)
quote: Do you feel that the court has any business stating that Alan is unable to consent? If so, does the same principal apply to BDSM? 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? To be honest, Ishtarr, you asked for opinions. Now you are getting upset over the responses. Not sure exactly what you expected. But you cannot demand what we accept and dont accept, regardless of how you feel.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine 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. The potential truth behind this is only because humans tend to uniformly resort to appeals to emotion. Also, the immediate jump to that term, in this discussion, means that you've already appraised what is happening in this man's life without really having the information necessary to suggest we should immediately be discussing "exploitation". What we're discussing are the reasons for the ethical denial of a person's freedom to pursue happiness. quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine 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. Which leaves us needing some appropriate system of discerning what is ethically best without resorting to the shock factors related to the 'imbalance' theory. quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine No, I believe the courts feel they're acting in the individual's best interest. Courts (should) have absolutely no ethical business telling anyone what is in their best interest. They're job should be to protect people from entities that would unethically seek to impose upon them restrictions to their best interests. quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine Sometimes the only boogeyman people need to be protected from is the one staring them in the mirror. Then we are proposing a system that, at least, can temporarily remove consent from anyone at any time if certain variables are met (going back to my rebound examples).

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:49:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: osf but can he make any other kind of decisions? According to what system of assessment? Should chain smokers be considered incapable of making body-health-related choices? Should promiscuous people be barred from making monogamy-related choices? It's far too easy to directly (and erroneously) equate a mental status with the suggestion of sub-humanity (funny how people stand firm by IQ as a test for lack if intelligence, but watch the attitude change when it's used to suggest a higher state of intelligence!). The fact that a person's system of understanding is not as complex as another's does not erase a person's ability to create a system of happiness and to be emotionally affected by it. The court has chosen to screw with a part of this man's concept of happiness because it feels something else is more important. That's a very dubious position to take in term of anything remotely related to ethical civil liberties (unless, as xxsve suggested, we're essentially demoting him to sub-human status). quote: ORIGINAL: osf 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 From a practical perspective, your suggestion that all his decisions should be yielded up to a caring guardian (and that includes the potential decision that would go against the court's ruling) I think I might agree. It still sits very uncomfortably with me in terms of preserving an honest human degree of freedom. 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. Laws enacted to protect people from themselves are illogical (and mostly just money-schemes). Or are you suggesting that we all, in one form or another, already have relinquished certain personal freedoms anyhow and that this is just another example? ponders That makes sense, actually. I don't find it ethically plausible as a system by which to function...but the idea makes sense.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 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. But the only reason that's "necessary" is due to force. It's the social equivalent of a 'might makes right' argument except we're dealing with flawed human ideas, rather than flawed human militaristic ideals.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 9:55:39 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. Interesting additional information. I would certainly consider that something involving more the policies of the home rather than across-the-board ethical imposition (I'm pretty sure none of us, regardless of IQ, would be allowed to have sex publicly at a 'Disney On Ice' show).

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If you willingly engage in a relationship with a man who wants to tie you up and spank you, there is a clear potential for him to abuse you once you've been tied up... so obviously, we morally can't allow you to engage in such behavior... I really don't get when it became okay in people's minds to take away the freedom of individuals to POTENTIALLY save other individual's from abuse. No, Ishtarr, and you know you are wrong there. The difference between my making a decision to be in such a relationship and Alan being in one is that my mental capabilities are not that of an 8 year old. I know the dangers, I know the risks. Alan does not, unless you have proof otherwise. Who is the "them" Alan told the court he wanted to kiss again? Don't tell me what I do and do not know tazzy... you have neither the knowledge nor the insight to tell me what I know. It doesn't matter whether or not you're smarter than an 8 year old. When you're allowing yourself to be tied up by somebody, you are engaging in risky behavior that could potentially get you hurt. If you're arguing that it's the court's job to step in when "the potential of abuse is in the making" -your words- than you need to recognize that the potential of abuse is in the making every time you engage in behavior like getting tied up, and it should thus be the court's job to step in every time... That is, unless you're going to change your argument and claim that whether or not a court should step in or not have got nothing to do with "the potential of abuse to be in the making". Sex with minors is illegal. If you're afraid that Alan is going to behave inappropriate towards children, your argument should be that he should be supervised around children. Simple forbidding him from having sex is NOT protecting any children. It doesn't matter who "them" is. "Them" could refer to his partner's balls for all we know. It's my understanding that Alan is placed under court supervision... Tell me, why is that court supervision's job to make sure Alan is not allowed to have sex... instead of making sure that Alan can only have sex in safe ways, and with other adults? If he indeed has made inappropriate comments to kids and "them" refers to kids, thus making him a risk towards them, as you seem to be suggesting... the appropriate response for his court supervision would be to make sure that Alan does not hurt kids. Something that is ALREADY illegal to do, and therefore does NOT require extra mandates to be placed on Alan, restricting his personal freedom. If Alan is in danger of breaking the law because he doesn't understand the law... at the very most, the court's shouldn't do more than ensure that he follows the law. Infringing on his personal freedom and disallowing him from having sex does NOT achieve that goal. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Since when did it became the court's job to act in the individual's best interest? The court's job is to make sure that people who break the State's laws are punished. Courts have no business stepping into people's live to protect them from potential harm. It's not the court's job, or original function, nor should it be. Bullshit. The Courts have many jobs. They also protect children from abuse... and potential abuse. But now you are saying they cannot protect Alan from abuse. Do you know there is no abuse going on? The Courts also have decisions based upon life and death situations. Are you now saying they should just allow some greedy bastard of a son to pull his mother's vent because she signed a health care power of attorney? Even though the Drs insist the vent is just to give her a rest from pneumonia? As I said, the Courts have many jobs, including telling others what to do or not do. The court's job is NOT to protect people from potential abuse... The court's job is to make sure people who commit abuse are punished. It's not because it's become socially acceptable for courts to infringe on people's rights to "protect" them from themselves that that's what the court's job is, or should be. IF there is abuse going on in Alan's case, how is simple forbidding him from having sex fixing that, considering he's living with the person he has sex with? And IF he's being abused by the person he's having sex with, why not use the law that is already there to stop that person from doing so, and use the court supervision Alan has been placed under to make sure that Alan only engages in sexual interactions that are non-abusive? Why does Alan need to be forced to be protected against himself in a way he obviously does not want? If there IS a problem, the laws are already there for the courts to fix the situation. If there IS a problem, forbidding Alan from having sex will by itself fix nothing. If there isn't actually currently a problem, there is no reason to infringe on Alan's freedom. As to the heath care situation described. I don't believe the courts have any business overruling the woman's decision in giving her son the choice on what to do -regardless of his motives- unless it can be demonstrated that he used force to get her to sign it. The mother knows her son better than the doctor or the courts do, the son knows his mother better than the doctor or the courts do. If she made the choice to let him decide, I have more faith in HER knowing that that is what she wanted, than in the courts knowing what she wanted.

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:27:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Courts (should) have absolutely no ethical business telling anyone what is in their best interest. They're job should be to protect people from entities that would unethically seek to impose upon them restrictions to their best interests. Hear, hear! [sm=applause.gif]

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:44:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Do you feel that the court has any business stating that Alan is unable to consent? If so, does the same principal apply to BDSM? 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? To be honest, Ishtarr, you asked for opinions. Now you are getting upset over the responses. Not sure exactly what you expected. But you cannot demand what we accept and dont accept, regardless of how you feel. Who the fuck said anything about me being upset, tazzy? I said I'm shocked, that doesn't mean I'm upset. I obviously have VERY strong opinions about this, that however doesn't mean that I get emotional about people disagreeing with me. Nor did I ever do anything CLOSE to demand anything of anybody in this tread, especially not adherence to a certain line of morals. Please point out to me where I indicated I was upset, and where I demanded that anybody should feel the same way about this than I do... If you're unable to do that, stop trying to talk down to me, telling me what I do and do not know, and trying to insinuate that I'm making demands of people when I did no such thing. You're only making yourself look foolish.

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 10:57:47 PM)
quote: If you're arguing that it's the court's job to step in when "the potential of abuse is in the making" -your words- than you need to recognize that the potential of abuse is in the making every time you engage in behavior like getting tied up, and it should thus be the court's job to step in every time... Then, according to your argument, we should allow 8 year olds to do what "feels good" as well... hmmm... interesting concept. quote: That is, unless you're going to change your argument and claim that whether or not a court should step in or not have got nothing to do with "the potential of abuse to be in the making". Nope, not going to change it at all. quote: Sex with minors is illegal. If you're afraid that Alan is going to behave inappropriate towards children, your argument should be that he should be supervised around children. Simple forbidding him from having sex is NOT accomplishing this. The law also considers physically helpless and mentally disabled victims to be incapable of giving consent to sexual acts. Physically helpless individuals include those who are unconscious, paralyzed, restrained, or otherwise incapable of resisting the sexual acts. Mentally disabled victims may include those who are permanently mentally disabled or those who are drugged and in a temporary state of mental disability. Some state statutes even include involuntarily intoxicated individuals in the category of temporarily mentally disabled victims. Although mistake of fact is no defense for sexual offenses with a minor, it is a defense for a physically helpless or mentally disabled adult victim if the perpetrator can show that he reasonably believed that the victim was not physically helpless or mentally disabled. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sex+Offenses Under Minnesota law, criminal sexual conduct or sex crimes may include: rape, statutory rape, unwanted sexual contact, criminal sexual assault, child pornography, child solicitation or child enticement, solicitation of mentally impaired persons, sodomy, incest, fornication, pimping, and prostitution. Some prohibitions, like those against sodomy and fornication, are technically still on the books, but rarely enforced. ....... Mental & Physical Infirmity of Victim. The actor knows or has reason to know that the complainant is mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless. http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/sexcrimes/ Q: Is consent a defense? A: Consent may be a defense to sex crimes, if the alleged victim is legally capable of consenting to sex under the law. Minors, the mentally impaired, and unconscious people cannot give valid consent. Sexual contact with persons in this group and others could result in any number of sexual assault charges, including statutory rape, or date rape (same as rape under the law). http://www.edfloreslaw.com/sexual-assault.htm Dont know about other countries. but in the US, this is illegal as well.

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:00:18 PM)
quote: Who the fuck said anything about me being upset, tazzy? That does. But im sure you will tell me Im wrong. And its ok, Im expecting you too. In fact, your whole attitude is screaming it. You dont like the Courts telling a mentally impaired person what they can or cant do. I think, in certain cases, they have some say. Its the law that matters. Dont like the law, change it. Until its changed, my position wont. You asked for opinions, I gave mine. Continue your thread, I have proven my point.

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:02:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Who the fuck said anything about me being upset, tazzy? That does. But im sure you will tell me Im wrong. That says I am upset at you at that moment, for that post, because you seem to assume that you can talk down to me. It says nothing at all about me being upset prior to your incredibly insulting post. Please show me where prior in this tread, I have indicated to be upset.

tazzygirl -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:05:03 PM)
quote: As to the heath care situation described. I don't believe the courts have any business overruling the woman's decision in giving her son the choice on what to do -regardless of his motives- unless it can be demonstrated that he used force to get her to sign it. The mother knows her son better than the doctor or the courts do, the son knows his mother better than the doctor or the courts do. If she made the choice to let him decide, I have more faith in HER knowing that that is what she wanted, than in the courts knowing what she wanted. On this, I have to respond. She is recovering from pneumonia... hardly, by itself, a life threatening issue, and one, as I pointed out, her Dr is confident she will recover from. And you think its ok that the son pull the plug? I do like visiting your world. But I think I will go back to reality now. Enjoy this thread.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:07:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Then, according to your argument, we should allow 8 year olds to do what "feels good" as well... hmmm... interesting concept. What dastardly deeds are you imagining 8 year olds concoct in their heads? Eating cotton candy for dinner? No!! Parental authority is pretty much a standard given because (and no one says this) children are not actually considered fully human until a certain chronological age and the propriety of biological birth means something to most mammals. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The law also considers physically helpless and mentally disabled victims to be incapable of giving consent to sexual acts. Physically helpless individuals include those who are unconscious, paralyzed, restrained, or otherwise incapable of resisting the sexual acts. Mentally disabled victims may include those who are permanently mentally disabled or those who are drugged and in a temporary state of mental disability. Some state statutes even include involuntarily intoxicated individuals in the category of temporarily mentally disabled victims. Although mistake of fact is no defense for sexual offenses with a minor, it is a defense for a physically helpless or mentally disabled adult victim if the perpetrator can show that he reasonably believed that the victim was not physically helpless or mentally disabled. That's because the law is based on prevalent flaws concerning sexuality, morality, ethical priorities, and appeals to consequences. This shouldn't be a surprise. That prostitution is illegal is just another testament to the illogic of laws.

NihilusZero -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl [ Its the law that matters. Dont like the law, change it. Until its changed, my position wont. Your position (and life?) is based solely on what legality tells you to do??

Ishtarr -> RE: Illegal to consent to sex? (2/6/2011 11:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If you're arguing that it's the court's job to step in when "the potential of abuse is in the making" -your words- than you need to recognize that the potential of abuse is in the making every time you engage in behavior like getting tied up, and it should thus be the court's job to step in every time... Then, according to your argument, we should allow 8 year olds to do what "feels good" as well... hmmm... interesting concept. I have never said that people should be allowed to do whatever they feel like. Suggesting that I did is a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. quote: quote: Sex with minors is illegal. If you're afraid that Alan is going to behave inappropriate towards children, your argument should be that he should be supervised around children. Simple forbidding him from having sex is NOT accomplishing this. ... Dont know about other countries. but in the US, this is illegal as well. Which is why this is an argument of what people find morally just, not what courts deem to be legal. The fact that courts deem it legal to disallow Alan from having sex is proven by the fact that they have forbidden him from having sex. If you're argument is that laws are always moral, simple by virtue of existing, I guess that would clarify your position a lot. I will clarify my own: I deem it to be immoral for courts to have laws and/or enforce laws that make it illegal for people to engage in behavior that has not been proven to be harmful to anybody else, based on the fact that it could potentially become harmful.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02