Incompetence to Consent

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me

Post Number:#61  Postby Alethia » June 21st, 2010, 8:52 am

Eveready wrote:Aleithea
It's not just bad taste, it's perverted... seriously perverted. What kind of mind assumes that 12 year old girls get horny for sex with men that are, to their young minds, old?


I have read again over this thread and can`t say that Scott is agreeing that a 12yr old girl can consent, he appears to be saying to Jack Owens she can`t consent, even if she said yes.


Well of course she can't consent... that's pretty obvious and a reference to psychological development (which may have been the intent behind Belinda's post) would provide the empirical evidence.

My issue is with the thought experiment itself. It is a repulsive concept to imagine and discuss for the philosophical meanderings of this place and does nothing as we all know, to further discussion on matters of consent.

I have provided a more relevant example. More complex and real. Let's move on and deal with that.
Alethia
 
Posts: 110 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 3:39 am



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#62  Postby Eveready » June 21st, 2010, 9:13 am

Well of course she can't consent... that's pretty obvious
My issue is with the thought experiment itself. It is a repulsive concept to imagine and discuss for the philosophical meanderings of this place and does nothing as we all know, to further discussion on matters of consent.


Its not obvious if consent means saying yes, which appears to be Jack Owens contention, what is obvious is the 12yr olds incompetence to consent, even if they said yes.
Until you mentioned it I had only read and commented on one post relevent to the OP question`s of incompetance to consent, by Jerry. Incompetance to consent is debate about the most henious coerced acts upone the vulnable, not just sexually perverted but non consensual acts upon the disabled and upon children and nature and animals. Moving on from distasteful subjects would mean ignoring them. I prefer an open debate about the deeper issues, it just could make people think. Which is what philosophy is.
Eveready
Banned
 
Posts: 357 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm

Post Number:#63  Postby Alethia » June 21st, 2010, 6:57 pm

Eveready wrote:
Well of course she can't consent... that's pretty obvious
My issue is with the thought experiment itself. It is a repulsive concept to imagine and discuss for the philosophical meanderings of this place and does nothing as we all know, to further discussion on matters of consent.


Its not obvious if consent means saying yes, which appears to be Jack Owens contention, what is obvious is the 12yr olds incompetence to consent, even if they said yes.
Until you mentioned it I had only read and commented on one post relevent to the OP question`s of incompetance to consent, by Jerry. Incompetance to consent is debate about the most henious coerced acts upone the vulnable, not just sexually perverted but non consensual acts upon the disabled and upon children and nature and animals. Moving on from distasteful subjects would mean ignoring them. I prefer an open debate about the deeper issues, it just could make people think. Which is what philosophy is.


Jeepers Creepers... Go check a dictionary. 'Yes' is consent! Done deal. And again, I say to you that a 12 year old girl cannot say yes and mean it... that's pretty obvious. Her 'yes' is incompetent because her biology is not yet at a stage to make that 'yes' meaningful.

Incompetance to consent is debate about the most henious coerced acts upone the vulnable...


No it is not... not always! And again, I have already provided an example (in the link) of where consent is questionable without their being henious acts entailed.

The photographic artist Henson likes to photograph ambiguity and transition, capturing the vulnerabilities entailed. One of his models was a 13 year old nude girl nude. The style was sexually ambiguous. He is a very controversial artist, so there is no surprise that when he showed this work, amongst others of a similar nature, he was raided by the police and his photographs were confiscated, to be returned later. There was outrage amongst the Australians which reached even to our Prime Minister who claimed he was disgusted by the work.

The child entailed could not possibly have known the consequences of her photograph, although her parents may have since they too are of the art community and know Henson.

My questions then are this... Can she knowingly consent to modelling for the art work such as she did? Since she is a minor, legally she cannot consent, she needs parental consent. So does a parent have the right to consent to art work such as Henson produces on behalf of their child?

The example of the 'horny' 13 year old is perverted and unrealistic, since it is known empirically that such children are not horny for sex. It is absurd to engage philosophically in that which is unreal and perverted in it's conception... a 'horny' 12 year old! It smacks of all things morally repugnant and makes me wonder if you men are not using this unreal example to get your rocks off. The saying... A wolf is sheep's clothing... could aptly describe this thread.

Keep it real gentlemen. If this must be about sex, use real life examples. Here are some more for you....

*In some western nations bestiality is not illegal. Can an animal consent to sex with a human?
*In Europe, one man advertised on the internet for someone who was willing to be cannibalised. This ad was answered. The meeting arranged. The victim also engaged in the eating of his own penis along with the perpetrator. Was there ever really consent?
*In the world of Domination and Submission, there are those who make a lifestyle of it, with the Submissive acting as slave to the Dominant partner 24/7 and subjected to punishments which include torture. Can the submissive really consent or are they incompetent in the first place?
*During the first world war, the armed services would use vaudeville performances to encourage men to sign up for war, engaging emotional devises and down right black mail. Sign up now Gentlemen and you will get a kiss from your favorite star. Rallied on by the stage performers and audience, men would go on stage, get their kiss and sign on to the war. Did they consent, or were they merely moved by the moment?

These are real examples Gentlemen. Keep it real. You do not need to denigrate this debate with ugly perverted concepts of 'horny 12 year old children'.
Alethia
 
Posts: 110 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 3:39 am

Post Number:#64  Postby Belinda » June 21st, 2010, 7:53 pm

Alethia, I am not outraged at this because I know that 12 year old girls are sometimes attracted to middle aged men. Some 12 year old girls send fan mail to pretty middle aged film actors or pop stars. Or they may fall in love with their school teacher.
If an adult man is seduced by any young girl below the age of consent he is culpable.Adults should take care of children and the law reflects this ethic. Children are precious. I don't think it is termed rape though, but it may be for all I know.

(Please remember that most pedophiles don't do anything illegal or immoral, they are simply affectionate. There is a lot of hysteria about pedophiles these days. )
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#65  Postby Alethia » June 21st, 2010, 8:45 pm

Belinda wrote:Alethia, I am not outraged at this because I know that 12 year old girls are sometimes attracted to middle aged men. Some 12 year old girls send fan mail to pretty middle aged film actors or pop stars. Or they may fall in love with their school teacher.
If an adult man is seduced by any young girl below the age of consent he is culpable.Adults should take care of children and the law reflects this ethic. Children are precious. I don't think it is termed rape though, but it may be for all I know.

(Please remember that most pedophiles don't do anything illegal or immoral, they are simply affectionate. There is a lot of hysteria about pedophiles these days. )


But they are not horny for sex with their crush... that is the difference. The sexual intent is being placed upon the 12 year old girl and not upon the man... that is the difference.

There was no mention of pedophilia... the girl is too old. The thought experiment is suggestive of hebophilia however, because the author of that thought has sexualized the 12 year old girl, making her horny for sex and requesting of sex with a man of a similar age to himself!

You can't even compare this to the book Lolita, for Humbert was besotted with the girl and the girl was precocious. There is no mention of that in Scott's sparse thought experiment. All we have is a 'horny 12 year old requesting sex with a middle aged man'. In his thought experiment the child is a sexual predator and the middle aged man is sexually submissive. It's the stuff of perverted sexual fantasy... and that is all.
Alethia
 
Posts: 110 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 3:39 am

Post Number:#66  Postby pjkeeley » June 21st, 2010, 9:53 pm

Alethia wrote:Go check a dictionary. 'Yes' is consent! Done deal.

Perhaps in everyday speech. However, as I mentioned previously, there is a specific use of the word 'consent' in legal and moral discussions. This sense of the word requires not just that a person say 'yes' to something, but that there is a willingness on the part of that person to do the thing that she says 'yes' to. So, if a gun is held to her head, or if she has been threatened, or if she is so drunk as to be unaware of her surroundings, her agreeing to something is not sufficient to amount to consent for legal and moral purposes, since she would otherwise be unwilling to do the thing in question. Do you not agree?
User avatar
pjkeeley
 
Posts: 694 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post Number:#67  Postby Alethia » June 21st, 2010, 10:11 pm

pjkeeley wrote:
Alethia wrote:Go check a dictionary. 'Yes' is consent! Done deal.

Perhaps in everyday speech. However, as I mentioned previously, there is a specific use of the word 'consent' in legal and moral discussions. This sense of the word requires not just that a person say 'yes' to something, but that there is a willingness on the part of that person to do the thing that she says 'yes' to. So, if a gun is held to her head, or if she has been threatened, or if she is so drunk as to be unaware of her surroundings, her agreeing to something is not sufficient to amount to consent for legal and moral purposes, since she would otherwise be unwilling to do the thing in question. Do you not agree?


If you think about it a little bit more, you will find that the word 'yes' has the same stipulation; that is a willingness on the part of that person to comply with what they are agreeing to.

To say 'yes' is to consent. It is the linguistic expression of consent no less.
Alethia
 
Posts: 110 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 24th, 2010, 3:39 am

Post Number:#68  Postby pjkeeley » June 22nd, 2010, 5:36 am

Alethia wrote:
pjkeeley wrote:So, if a gun is held to her head, or if she has been threatened, or if she is so drunk as to be unaware of her surroundings, her agreeing to something is not sufficient to amount to consent for legal and moral purposes, since she would otherwise be unwilling to do the thing in question. Do you not agree?

Alethia wrote:If you think about it a little bit more, you will find that the word 'yes' has the same stipulation; that is a willingness on the part of that person to comply with what they are agreeing to.

To say 'yes' is to consent. It is the linguistic expression of consent no less.

So then you don't agree? You think that someone who has a gun held to their head and who says 'yes' to something has consented to the thing in question?
User avatar
pjkeeley
 
Posts: 694 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post Number:#69  Postby Eveready » June 22nd, 2010, 7:57 am

pjkeeley wrote:
So, if a gun is held to her head, or if she has been threatened, or if she is so drunk as to be unaware of her surroundings, her agreeing to something is not sufficient to amount to consent for legal and moral purposes, since she would otherwise be unwilling to do the thing in question. Do you not agree?

Alethia wrote:
If you think about it a little bit more, you will find that the word 'yes' has the same stipulation; that is a willingness on the part of that person to comply with what they are agreeing to.

To say 'yes' is to consent. It is the linguistic expression of consent no less.



pjkeeley wrote
So then you don't agree? You think that someone who has a gun held to their head and who says 'yes' to something has consented to the thing in question?


Which was the point I made in my post #60 for some reason people here associate saying yes as consent. It is linear shallow thinking and as you have outlined a gun against someone`s head and them saying yes does not qualify as consensual in any moral or philosophical argument. It would become incompetence to consent because they are under duress, [gun against head] and coerced, [led into unwillingly] why is this so hard for Alethia to understand?

EG A rapist could say in court, she said yes to the rape, what the court would take into consideration is she said this whilst he was holding a knife against her throat, she would say anything to get it over with and calm him down so he didn`t kill her.
Eveready
Banned
 
Posts: 357 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 19th, 2010, 10:30 pm

Post Number:#70  Postby Belinda » June 22nd, 2010, 12:42 pm

Alethia, I dislike the word 'horny' whoever is being referred to. It is a word that makes me think the user is rather scornfully belittling the sexual urge of whoever is being referred to. I disapprove of the sexual urge being disparaged or belittled.

There is a difference between romantic attachment and sheer sexual lust whoever is experiencing them. I disapprove of the early sexualisation of children either in the sense of sheer sexual lust or of romantic attachment. There is a lot of it going on and it is encouraged by the children's fashion industry and parents who are unaware that certain adult clothing styles, makeup etc are unsuited to children. It is irresponsible either to sexualise children through cultural means such as fashions and advertising, as well as through personal contact.

The 12 year old girl is capable of being sexualised in several ways but this fact does not justify any adults doing it to her.This is because in our society where children have ideally to be parented until their late teens of early twenties a young girl cannot adequately cope with the stresses and strains of adult sexuality, however aware she may be of sexual practises.

The relevance of this to consent is that an adult any adult has a moral responsibilty to all children even when they are strangers, and even when somebody else may have sexualised them. Any adult who refuses to take responsibility for those who are less able whoever they may be, children, animals, the elderly, the disabled people, dependent servants, dependent clients, is antisocial and requires education in civic and moral responsibilities.
Socialist
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#71  Postby Scott » June 22nd, 2010, 4:18 pm

Belinda wrote:The relevance of this to consent is that an adult any adult has a moral responsibilty to all children even when they are strangers, and even when somebody else may have sexualised them. Any adult who refuses to take responsibility for those who are less able whoever they may be, children, animals, the elderly, the disabled people, dependent servants, dependent clients, is antisocial and requires education in civic and moral responsibilities.

Yes, I agree strongly with that senitment. (Though, I wouldn't use moral terminology, but that's just semantics.)

pjkeeley wrote:So then you don't agree? You think that someone who has a gun held to their head and who says 'yes' to something has consented to the thing in question?
Eveready wrote:Which was the point I made in my post #60 for some reason people here associate saying yes as consent. It is linear shallow thinking and as you have outlined a gun against someone`s head and them saying yes does not qualify as consensual in any moral or philosophical argument. It would become incompetence to consent because they are under duress, [gun against head] and coerced, [led into unwillingly] why is this so hard for Alethia to understand?

EG A rapist could say in court, she said yes to the rape, what the court would take into consideration is she said this whilst he was holding a knife against her throat, she would say anything to get it over with and calm him down so he didn`t kill her.

Yes, excactly, consent doesn't mean saying yes. An interaction can be consensual even though someone didn't say yes; an interaction can be non-consensual even though the alleged victim said yes.

***

If she'll excuse me for guessing, I think what Alethia may be thinking is that when a person is asked if he/she wants to do a certain activity or are okay with an interaction being done to him/her (e.g. "Do you want to have sex with me? Are you willing to have sex with me?") and the potential victim says 'yes,' the potential victim means, 'I consent.' Indeed, instead of asking a yes or no question, the potential perpetrator could simply ask, "Do you consent to having sex with me?" The potential victim could say, "I consent." But that still doesn't make the activity consensual. There is still a difference between consenting and saying "I consent" let alone merely saying yes to a less specific question. Namely, despite saying "yes," or even "I consent," it generally is still non-consensual if the potential victim is not capable of consent such as by being under duress (e.g. at knife-point), being mentally incompetent (e.g. being a preteen, an animal, or a severly mentally handicapped person), being the victim of fraud, etc.

Indeed most times competent, consenting adults have consensual sex they do no explicitly ask each other whether or not they want it or consent to it and wait for a yes or no answer. Consent is more complicated than what a person says, let alone a singluar yes or no question.

With that confusion explained, I think we all agree on the main points from which that confusion stemmed and from which red herrings have occured: A 12-year-old girl is incompetent to consent; Therefore, anytime a competent 30-year-old man has sex with a 12-year-old girl it is rape even if the girl explicitly says, "I consent; I want to do it."
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Previous

Return to Philosophy of Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST