At another point in the discussion, a man spoke of some benefit X of death, I don’t recall exactly what. And I said: “You know, given human nature, if people got hit on the head by a baseball bat every week, pretty soon they would invent reasons why getting hit on the head with a baseball bat was a good thing. But if you took someone who wasn’t being hit on the head with a baseball bat, and you asked them if they wanted it, they would say no. I think that if you took someone who was immortal, and asked them if they wanted to die for benefit X, they would say no.”
I am aware that some people live in Gor-inspired relationships, that some people are masochistic, that some women want to be dominated, and that more people would like to live that way than those who would care to admit it, or even that those who know for a fact that they would. I still assume these numbers to be small.
Of course people would adapt. That’s what people do. That doesn’t make it right.
In the past, almost everyone thought that one should wait until marriage for sex. Now, almost everyone (in my part of the world) believes in serial monogamy. In both these cases people think that their social norms are in the right. I see no reason not to suppose that if Gor lifestyle became the norm then most people (inc. women) would think it right (not just publically saying that its right).
I see no objective way to say that any of these lifestyles are right or wrong, unless it can be shown to be damaging the children.
What they believe in, or rather, endorse, and what they end up actually doing or wanting to do have usually been at odds. The ideal solution is different for every combination of individual and circumstance: the ideal universal solution is therefore an superstructural (ideological, legal, cultural, etc.) framework capable of running and accommodating any specific arrangement between interested parties. Objectively speaking, I think the only hard and fast rule is “Safe, Sane and Consensual”.
Suppose a 16-year-old agrees to have sex. Is that consent?
If a contract is made under “undue influence,” did I consent to it? Is that objective?
If my agreement is made under coercion, did I consent? What counts (morally) as coercion seems very fraught. Leftists and feminists frequently argue that many seemingly voluntary activities are actually deeply coercive, and use terms like “wage slavery.”
Suppose I agree to an act, then change my mind later. If the other person carries out the act anyway, did I consent to it? In law, and in most people’s intuition, the answer is “it depends.”
All in all, it looks very much like “communicated agreement” is the objective fact, and whether that gets upgraded to “consent” depends on a whole host of ethical judgments that are often contentious.
Consent is more objective than sanity, although there are edge cases:
Suppose a 16-year-old agrees to have sex. Is that consent?
Where I live 16-year-olds can legally have sex! Anyway, assuming things are different where you live, then yes, they can give consent, but their consent does not legally authorise sex.
If a contract is made under “undue influence,” did I consent to it? Is that objective?
If my agreement is made under coercion, did I consent? What counts (morally) as coercion seems very fraught. Leftists and feminists frequently argue that many seemingly voluntary activities are actually deeply coercive, and use terms like “wage slavery.”
Well, yes you did consent. This doen’t necessary make everything ok, and it might be better if there was less coersion, but you still consented.
Suppose I agree to an act, then change my mind later. If the other person carries out the act anyway, did I consent to it? In law, and in most people’s intuition, the answer is “it depends.”
You consented, and then withdrew your consent. If the other person carries out the act before you withdraw consent, then they can’t be blamed.
All in all, it looks very much like “communicated agreement” is the objective fact, and whether that gets upgraded to “consent” depends on a whole host of ethical judgments that are often contentious.
I’d say “communicated agreement” is consent by definition. Its possibly a word getting a little overloaded : the word consent can be used as in “Russia consented to hand over 1⁄4 of her territory to Germany” or as in “Let’s have sex!” while these are rather different in most important respects.
Is so called “marital rape” consensual since they consented to marry? (Most societies say yes, but lately in has become fashionable in Western countries to pass laws saying no).
What if someone says yes but feels pressured to?
If two drunk students had sex, has a rape occurred? (Yes, according to California’s new “Affirmative Consent” law).
Is so called “marital rape” consensual since they consented to marry?
A contract where one party permanently gives away all rights (love, honour and obey) seems deeply worrying, but OTOH, I don’t think people should take serious vows so lightly. Maybe a middle ground would be that a spouse can refuse sex, but this is grounds for divorce and they have no claim for alimony because they broke their half of the agreement? Either that, or don’t use the traditional vows.
What if someone says yes but feels pressured to?
What if someone only robs a bank because of peer pressure? Still guilty.
If two drunk students had sex, has a rape occurred?
It depends exactly what ‘drunk’ means. If someone is paralytic and can’t actually articulate the word ‘no’ then its rape. But drunk sex is perfectly normal, and if you consent to getting drunk then you are responsible for your actions while drunk.
Because it is ridiculous with respect to adults and California politicians think they can get away with infantilizing students and treating them like legal minors.
I am aware that some people live in Gor-inspired relationships, that some people are masochistic, that some women want to be dominated, and that more people would like to live that way than those who would care to admit it, or even that those who know for a fact that they would. I still assume these numbers to be small.
Of course people would adapt. That’s what people do. That doesn’t make it right.
In the past, almost everyone thought that one should wait until marriage for sex. Now, almost everyone (in my part of the world) believes in serial monogamy. In both these cases people think that their social norms are in the right. I see no reason not to suppose that if Gor lifestyle became the norm then most people (inc. women) would think it right (not just publically saying that its right).
I see no objective way to say that any of these lifestyles are right or wrong, unless it can be shown to be damaging the children.
What they believe in, or rather, endorse, and what they end up actually doing or wanting to do have usually been at odds. The ideal solution is different for every combination of individual and circumstance: the ideal universal solution is therefore an superstructural (ideological, legal, cultural, etc.) framework capable of running and accommodating any specific arrangement between interested parties. Objectively speaking, I think the only hard and fast rule is “Safe, Sane and Consensual”.
Except the meaning of all three of those terms is culture dependent.
“Sane” is certainly culture dependent, but consent seem relatively objective.
Really?
Suppose a 16-year-old agrees to have sex. Is that consent?
If a contract is made under “undue influence,” did I consent to it? Is that objective?
If my agreement is made under coercion, did I consent? What counts (morally) as coercion seems very fraught. Leftists and feminists frequently argue that many seemingly voluntary activities are actually deeply coercive, and use terms like “wage slavery.”
Suppose I agree to an act, then change my mind later. If the other person carries out the act anyway, did I consent to it? In law, and in most people’s intuition, the answer is “it depends.”
All in all, it looks very much like “communicated agreement” is the objective fact, and whether that gets upgraded to “consent” depends on a whole host of ethical judgments that are often contentious.
Consent is more objective than sanity, although there are edge cases:
Where I live 16-year-olds can legally have sex! Anyway, assuming things are different where you live, then yes, they can give consent, but their consent does not legally authorise sex.
Well, yes you did consent. This doen’t necessary make everything ok, and it might be better if there was less coersion, but you still consented.
You consented, and then withdrew your consent. If the other person carries out the act before you withdraw consent, then they can’t be blamed.
I’d say “communicated agreement” is consent by definition. Its possibly a word getting a little overloaded : the word consent can be used as in “Russia consented to hand over 1⁄4 of her territory to Germany” or as in “Let’s have sex!” while these are rather different in most important respects.
That looks doubtful as you need to be sane to give consent, don’t you?
I think this entire conversation is just getting bogged down as to how do define ‘consent’ and ‘sanity’.
Is so called “marital rape” consensual since they consented to marry? (Most societies say yes, but lately in has become fashionable in Western countries to pass laws saying no).
What if someone says yes but feels pressured to?
If two drunk students had sex, has a rape occurred? (Yes, according to California’s new “Affirmative Consent” law).
A contract where one party permanently gives away all rights (love, honour and obey) seems deeply worrying, but OTOH, I don’t think people should take serious vows so lightly. Maybe a middle ground would be that a spouse can refuse sex, but this is grounds for divorce and they have no claim for alimony because they broke their half of the agreement? Either that, or don’t use the traditional vows.
What if someone only robs a bank because of peer pressure? Still guilty.
It depends exactly what ‘drunk’ means. If someone is paralytic and can’t actually articulate the word ‘no’ then its rape. But drunk sex is perfectly normal, and if you consent to getting drunk then you are responsible for your actions while drunk.
… Why students specifically?
Because it is ridiculous with respect to adults and California politicians think they can get away with infantilizing students and treating them like legal minors.
Actually, I suspect they’re hoping to keep getting away with infantilizing that generation even after they leave college.
Oh, I am sure they’re dreaming of it, but I don’t think it will quite work. Not yet, at least.
“So called?” Do you seriously think a wife surrenders her autonomy permanently before the altar?
I would agree that the desirability of the Gor future largely depends on whether its consensual.