History UsefulNotes / Consent

13th Apr '16 9:33:11 AM Naanite
Is there an issue? Send a Message


First, does the person reasonably understand what is happening? Second, does the person have the right to stop what is happening without external consequences? Third, does the person have he right to require reasonable protections? Let's go over each of these.

to:

First, does the person reasonably understand what is happening? Second, does the person have the right to stop what is happening without external consequences? Third, does the person have he the right to require reasonable protections? Let's go over each of these.
28th Feb '16 5:45:38 PM Eievie
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Acts that can give bruises and/or cause pain. A boxing match is not assault, and neither is playing around with martial arts -- but only as long as everyone involved is in on it. Doing the same move on a non-consenting person is assault, no more and no less.
* All and any sexual acts, including fondling -- for example, grabbing a stranger's ass can be considered sexual assault, depending on the jurisdiction.

to:

* Acts that can give bruises and/or cause pain. A boxing match is not assault, and neither is playing around with martial arts -- but arts--but only as long as everyone involved is in on it. Doing the same move on a non-consenting person is assault, no more and no less.
* All and any sexual acts, including fondling -- for fondling--for example, grabbing a stranger's ass can be considered sexual assault, depending on the jurisdiction.



However, consent is not a simple matter....

to:

However, consent is not a simple matter....
matter…



This can be handled by giving consent beforehand ("permission"); for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. Is such stated consent even needed? Can't lovers just hug each other without asking permission? And can such consent even be given? While most people would probably answer "yes" on both questions, there are those who say no on one or even both. The argument goes that even if you consented beforehand, you might be having a bad morning now and not want any contact -- there's no way to know until afterwards, and by then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.

to:

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand ("permission"); for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... with… well with love. Is such stated consent even needed? Can't lovers just hug each other without asking permission? And can such consent even be given? While most people would probably answer "yes" on both questions, there are those who say no on one or even both. The argument goes that even if you consented beforehand, you might be having a bad morning now and not want any contact -- there's contact--there's no way to know until afterwards, and by then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.



The law also has several cases of implied consent which apply away from these personal situations. A few examples: Every time you get behind the wheel of a car in the United States, you have consented to allowing law enforcement to checking your blood alcohol levels. Refusing to take the test - blood, urine or breathalyzer - is just not a viable defense, and while refusal cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, if you refuse they'll suspend your license for anything from a few months to a year, whether or not you're convicted of drunk driving. In the United States, certain firearms permits give consent to being continually ready to prove registration of the weapon to law enforcement whenever asked to do so. Likewise, many countries (notably not the US) have implied consent for organ donation. Unless you specifically refuse to donate, the legal system assumes you are consenting to donate your organs upon death.

to:

The law also has several cases of implied consent which apply away from these personal situations. A few examples: Every time you get behind the wheel of a car in the United States, you have consented to allowing law enforcement to checking your blood alcohol levels. Refusing to take the test - blood, test--blood, urine or breathalyzer - is breathalyzer--is just not a viable defense, and while refusal cannot be taken as an admission of guilt, if you refuse they'll suspend your license for anything from a few months to a year, whether or not you're convicted of drunk driving. In the United States, certain firearms permits give consent to being continually ready to prove registration of the weapon to law enforcement whenever asked to do so. Likewise, many countries (notably not the US) have implied consent for organ donation. Unless you specifically refuse to donate, the legal system assumes you are consenting to donate your organs upon death.



!!Consent and Implied Consent - Medicine

Implied consent is also a legal term in medicine. This applies to the United States, and your local laws may be different. A full discussion of this is way beyond the scope of this article, but these kinds of dramatic life-and-death situations come up in fiction and so are worth examining. First, all medical procedures - period - require informed consent. A rational patient must be provided reasonable information about proposed interventions and also must be allowed to refuse care. However, when a patient cannot make decisions for themselves rationally, they have given the health care worker or rescuer implied consent to go ahead and execute appropriate care. If you are dying, and you are in your right mind, you can still wave-away any help and your autonomy in this matter must be recognized. If you fall unconscious before help arrives, your rescuers should assume you wanted help.

to:

!!Consent and Implied Consent - Medicine

Consent--Medicine

Implied consent is also a legal term in medicine. This applies to the United States, and your local laws may be different. A full discussion of this is way beyond the scope of this article, but these kinds of dramatic life-and-death situations come up in fiction and so are worth examining. First, all medical procedures - period - require procedures--period--require informed consent. A rational patient must be provided reasonable information about proposed interventions and also must be allowed to refuse care. However, when a patient cannot make decisions for themselves rationally, they have given the health care worker or rescuer implied consent to go ahead and execute appropriate care. If you are dying, and you are in your right mind, you can still wave-away any help and your autonomy in this matter must be recognized. If you fall unconscious before help arrives, your rescuers should assume you wanted help.



# When should something be considered "Safe"? One reasonable interpretation is that risks are known and minimized. However, one could also take it as a totalitarian demand for total safety: No risk whatsoever can ever be tolerated. This is unreasonable, because nothing is ever totally safe. Leaving your home is not safe; you could get mugged or ran over by a car. ''Staying'' in your home is not safe either -- you could be attacked by a robber, a plane or tree could crash into it, or there could be a fire or whatever. Yet there are people in the BDSM community who with complete sincerity and very literally speaking accuse each other of being unsafe because they have someone sit in a chair without having the chair bolted to the floor and the person tied to the chair -- because, what if they happened to fall off the chair? On the other end of the spectrum, some people consider lethally hazardous activities to be "safe" even as others insist that they are hugely underestimating the risks.

to:

# When should something be considered "Safe"? One reasonable interpretation is that risks are known and minimized. However, one could also take it as a totalitarian demand for total safety: No risk whatsoever can ever be tolerated. This is unreasonable, because nothing is ever totally safe. Leaving your home is not safe; you could get mugged or ran over by a car. ''Staying'' in your home is not safe either -- you either--you could be attacked by a robber, a plane or tree could crash into it, or there could be a fire or whatever. Yet there are people in the BDSM community who with complete sincerity and very literally speaking accuse each other of being unsafe because they have someone sit in a chair without having the chair bolted to the floor and the person tied to the chair -- because, chair--because, what if they happened to fall off the chair? On the other end of the spectrum, some people consider lethally hazardous activities to be "safe" even as others insist that they are hugely underestimating the risks.
24th Feb '16 4:55:12 PM Unknownlight
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!!Permission

to:

!!!Permission
\\

!!Permission



!!!Plain Consent

to:

!!!Plain Consent\\

!!Plain Consent



!!!Implied Consent in an existing situation where intimacy is already established

to:

!!!Implied \\

!!Implied
Consent in an existing situation where intimacy is already establishedestablished



!!!Consenting Adults

to:

!!!Consenting Adults\\

!!Consenting Adults



!!!Informed Consent
The idea that everyone involved is not only consenting, but also understands what they are consenting to.

!!!Problems with Consenting Adults and Informed Consent

to:

!!!Informed Consent
\\

!!Informed Consent

The idea that everyone involved is not only consenting, but also understands what they are consenting to.

!!!Problems \\

!!Problems
with Consenting Adults and Informed ConsentConsent



!!!Implied consent

to:

!!!Implied consent\\

!!Implied consent



!!!Problems with implied consent

to:

!!!Problems \\

!!Problems
with implied consentconsent



!!! Consent and Implied Consent - Medicine

to:

!!! Consent \\

!!Consent
and Implied Consent - Medicine



!!!Safe Sane And Consensual

to:

!!!Safe \\

!!Safe
Sane And ConsensualConsensual



!!!Problems with SSC

to:

!!!Problems \\

!!Problems
with SSCSSC



!!!Risk Aware Consensual Kink

to:

!!!Risk \\

!!Risk
Aware Consensual KinkKink
14th Sep '15 3:19:42 PM AsForMyHandle
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The right to reasonable protections means they can insist on means to warn of the need to stop, and for use of any reasonable birth control and/or disease protection with respect to how well they know you and your history. Two people who don't know each other or who are in a non-monogamous relationship should use condoms (or dental dams in the case of lesbians). Two people who know each other and have knowledge the other has no diseases might use a non-barrier contraceptive, and so on. This also includes the use of "safe words" to allow things to stop if it goes too far, especially if they're going to ignore "no" or "stop" when people are playing games involving fake non-consent (like oen plays the homeowner and the other plays the "burglar" who broke in and decides to "take advantage" of them, or the other way around). Or people doing BDSM, there may be minor amounts of pain they don't mind or actually like, but they must be given a means to indicate something is wrong to allow things to stop.

to:

The right to reasonable protections means they can insist on means to warn of the need to stop, and for use of any reasonable birth control and/or disease protection with respect to how well they know you and your history. Two people who don't know each other or who are in a non-monogamous relationship should use condoms (or dental dams in the case of lesbians). Two people who know each other and have knowledge the other has no diseases might use a non-barrier contraceptive, and so on. This also includes the use of "safe words" to allow things to stop if it goes too far, especially if they're going to ignore "no" or "stop" when people are playing games involving fake non-consent (like oen when plays the homeowner and the other plays the "burglar" who broke in and decides to "take advantage" of them, or the other way around). Or people doing BDSM, there may be minor amounts of pain they don't mind or actually like, but they must be given a means to indicate something is wrong to allow things to stop.



Permission is obvious explicit approval in advance. Two people are in bed together fooling around, and one says to the other they can go ahead and get inside them whenever they want. There is no doubt that consent has been given, and the person doesn't have ro worry they might do somnething the other didn't like or wasn't ready for.

to:

Permission is obvious explicit approval in advance. Two people are in bed together fooling around, and one says to the other they can go ahead and get inside them whenever they want. There is no doubt that consent has been given, and the person doesn't have ro to worry they might do somnething something the other didn't like or wasn't ready for.
14th Sep '15 3:16:30 PM AsForMyHandle
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The simplest form of consent is plain consent. Someone saying "uh, yeah, sure" or whatever when aske4.

to:

The simplest form of consent is plain consent. Someone saying "uh, yeah, sure" or whatever when aske4.asked.
25th Aug '15 10:59:07 AM Tdarcos
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Being able to stop without external consequences means that you're not being blackmailed or forced to do whatever is happening by extortion or threat to others, nor threatened with injury for refusing. The other person can tell you to leave or refuse to see you again, but they can't cause you problems with other people.

to:

Being able to stop without external consequences means that you're not being blackmailed or forced to do whatever is happening by extortion or threat to others, nor threatened with injury for refusing. The other person can leave (or tell you to leave leave) or refuse to see you again, but they can't hurt or injure you, nor cause you problems with other people.



!!1Implied Consent in an existing situation where intimacy is already established

to:

!!1Implied !!!Implied Consent in an existing situation where intimacy is already established



More than anything else, except in the case of permission (because permission is consent in advance), the other person must have the capacity to say no any time before something happens. And once something does happen, even where permission was given, they have every right to stop it. Even when things are in progress, or rather, ''especially'' when things are in progress.

to:

More than anything else, except in the case of permission (because permission is consent in advance), the other person must have the capacity to say no any time before something happens. And once something does happen, even where permission was given, they have every right to stop it.it, to "revoke" consent. Even when things are in progress, or rather, ''especially'' when things are in progress.



Then there are exceptions to the rules because it isn't thought to be a good idea to put some kid in jail because they're having consensual sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who just happens to be below the normal age of consent and the two of them are close in age, so exceptions are sometimes made, e.g. in Maryland the age of consent is 16, but it's legal to have sex with someone 15 if you're under 21. In Colorado the age of consent is 17, but it's legal to have consensual sex with someone 15 or 16 as long as you're no more than 10 years older. In California all sex with anyone under 18 is a crime (yes, that means if a 15-yeat5-old boy is having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, ''both'' are committing a crime), but the crime is reduced from a felony (with prison time of at least 3 years) to a misdemeanor (maximum jail time of six months and a fine) if they are no more than four years difference in age.

to:

Then there are exceptions to the rules because it isn't thought to be a good idea to put some kid in jail because they're having consensual sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who just happens to be below the normal age of consent and the two of them are close in age, so exceptions are sometimes made, e.g. in Maryland the age of consent is 16, but it's legal to have sex with someone 15 if you're under 21. In Colorado the age of consent is 17, but it's legal to have consensual sex with someone 15 or 16 as long as you're no more than 10 years older. In California all sex with anyone under 18 is a crime (yes, that means if a 15-yeat5-old 15-year-old boy is having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, ''both'' are committing a crime), but the crime is reduced from a felony (with prison time of at least 3 years) to a misdemeanor (maximum jail time of six months and a fine) if they are no more than four years difference in age.
25th Aug '15 10:46:10 AM Tdarcos
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The right to reasonable protections means they can insist on means to warn of the need to stop, and for use of any reasonable birth control and/or disease protection with respect to how well they know you and your history. Two people who don't know each other or who are in a non-monogamous relationship should use condoms. Two people who know each other and have knowledge the other has no diseases might use a non-barrier contraceptive, and so on. This also includes the use of "safe words" to allow things to stop if it goes too far, especially if they're going to ignore "no" or "stop" when people are playing games involving fake non-consent (like oen plays the homeowner and the other plays the "burglar" who broke in and decides to "take advantage" of them, or the other way around). Or people doing BDSM, there may be minor amounts of pain they don't mind or actually like, but they must be given a means to indicate something is wrong to allow things to stop.

to:

The right to reasonable protections means they can insist on means to warn of the need to stop, and for use of any reasonable birth control and/or disease protection with respect to how well they know you and your history. Two people who don't know each other or who are in a non-monogamous relationship should use condoms.condoms (or dental dams in the case of lesbians). Two people who know each other and have knowledge the other has no diseases might use a non-barrier contraceptive, and so on. This also includes the use of "safe words" to allow things to stop if it goes too far, especially if they're going to ignore "no" or "stop" when people are playing games involving fake non-consent (like oen plays the homeowner and the other plays the "burglar" who broke in and decides to "take advantage" of them, or the other way around). Or people doing BDSM, there may be minor amounts of pain they don't mind or actually like, but they must be given a means to indicate something is wrong to allow things to stop.
25th Aug '15 10:04:12 AM Tdarcos
Is there an issue? Send a Message


First, does the person reasonably understand what is happening? Second, does the person have the right to stop what is happening without external consequences? Third, does the person have he right to require reasonable protections? Let's go over each of these.

Reasonable understanding means you know what's going on and what to expect. If a guy and a girl are on a couch heavy necking, and he reaches under her dress, pulls off her panties and sticks it in her, that's certainly not what she was expecting, or even in the most charitable interpretation, not ''yet'', anyway.

Being able to stop without external consequences means that you're not being blackmailed or forced to do whatever is happening by extortion or threat to others, nor threatened with injury for refusing. The other person can tell you to leave or refuse to see you again, but they can't cause you problems with other people.

The right to reasonable protections means they can insist on means to warn of the need to stop, and for use of any reasonable birth control and/or disease protection with respect to how well they know you and your history. Two people who don't know each other or who are in a non-monogamous relationship should use condoms. Two people who know each other and have knowledge the other has no diseases might use a non-barrier contraceptive, and so on. This also includes the use of "safe words" to allow things to stop if it goes too far, especially if they're going to ignore "no" or "stop" when people are playing games involving fake non-consent (like oen plays the homeowner and the other plays the "burglar" who broke in and decides to "take advantage" of them, or the other way around). Or people doing BDSM, there may be minor amounts of pain they don't mind or actually like, but they must be given a means to indicate something is wrong to allow things to stop.

We can divide consent into three flavors. Permission, plain consent and implied consent.
!!!Permission
Permission is obvious explicit approval in advance. Two people are in bed together fooling around, and one says to the other they can go ahead and get inside them whenever they want. There is no doubt that consent has been given, and the person doesn't have ro worry they might do somnething the other didn't like or wasn't ready for.



The simplest form of consent is plain consent. Someone saying "uh, yeah, sure" or whatever. But what if the person doesn't know what he or she is getting into? What if they're not in a position to say no?

We think that consensus requires equality between the parties in terms of power and responsibility, which is why children and the mentally disabled are considered incapable of consenting with able adults. And even between adults, there can still be issues about knowing what they are getting into and not getting exploited, which is why the ethics get trickier when there are issues of power and authority (such as teachers and students, supervisors and employees, etc.). See Consenting Adults and Informed Consent below.

We also have the reverse issue, with consent being given such high priority that it actually takes away people's right to their own bodies. See Implied Consent below.

to:

The simplest form of consent is plain consent. Someone saying "uh, yeah, sure" or whatever. But whatever when aske4.

!!1Implied Consent in an existing situation where intimacy is already established
This one's a little touchy because some people feel there is no such thing, but in real situations it's probably very common and expected. A man and a woman are in bed together, he's been performing oral sex on her for some time and she's enjoyed it. So then he decides to have his fun. He uses his hands to push her legs apart, climbs on top of her, prepares himself, then gets inside her, taking a full ten seconds to do so before he starts moving. She clearly knew
what he was going to do, and said nothing. She did not say it was okay, nor did she tell him no. Given the circumstances it is reasonable to presume she consented to this.

With the possible exception of when the person has permission, there are always questions that can occur. What
if the person doesn't know what he or she is getting into? What if they're not in a position to say no?

More than anything else, except in the case of permission (because permission is consent in advance), the other person must have the capacity to say no any time before something happens. And once something does happen, even where permission was given, they have every right to stop it. Even when things are in progress, or rather, ''especially'' when things are in progress.

We think that consensus requires equality between the parties in terms of power and responsibility, which is why children and the mentally disabled are considered incapable of consenting with able adults. And even between adults, there can still be issues about knowing what they are getting into and not getting exploited, which is why the ethics get trickier when there are issues of power and authority (such as teachers and students, supervisors and employees, etc.). See Consenting '''Consenting Adults and Informed Consent Consent''' below.

We also have the reverse issue, with consent being given such high priority that it actually takes away people's right to their own bodies. See Implied Consent '''Implied Consent''' below.



Most places have a set of fixed rules established by law with some exceptions called "age of consent." In the United Kingdom, Canada, 30 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16. In 12 U.S. states, the age of consent is 17, and the other 8 states set it at 18.

Then there are exceptions to the rules because it isn't thought to be a good idea to put some kid in jail because they're having consensual sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who just happens to be below the normal age of consent and the two of them are close in age, so exceptions are sometimes made, e.g. in Maryland the age of consent is 16, but it's legal to have sex with someone 15 if you're under 21. In Colorado the age of consent is 17, but it's legal to have consensual sex with someone 15 or 16 as long as you're no more than 10 years older. In California all sex with anyone under 18 is a crime, but the crime is reduced from a felony (with prison time of at least 3 years) to a misdemeanor (maximum jail time of six months and a fine) if they are no more than four years difference in age.

to:

Most places have a set of fixed rules established by law with some exceptions called "age of consent." In the United Kingdom, Canada, 30 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16. In 12 8 U.S. states, the age of consent is 17, and the other 8 11 states set it at 18.

Then there are exceptions to the rules because it isn't thought to be a good idea to put some kid in jail because they're having consensual sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who just happens to be below the normal age of consent and the two of them are close in age, so exceptions are sometimes made, e.g. in Maryland the age of consent is 16, but it's legal to have sex with someone 15 if you're under 21. In Colorado the age of consent is 17, but it's legal to have consensual sex with someone 15 or 16 as long as you're no more than 10 years older. In California all sex with anyone under 18 is a crime, crime (yes, that means if a 15-yeat5-old boy is having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, ''both'' are committing a crime), but the crime is reduced from a felony (with prison time of at least 3 years) to a misdemeanor (maximum jail time of six months and a fine) if they are no more than four years difference in age.
age.

It's sometimes been said when there's an issue of consensual sex where one or both are below the age of consent, the only issue is what the other one's parents think. If their parents are okay with it, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not. They'll probably let the two use their child's bedroom, so it's private. The person who wants to have sex isn't going to turn the other in, and their parents aren't, so the police don't know and nobody's going to jail.



This can be handled by giving consent beforehand; for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. Is such stated consent even needed? Can't lovers just hug each other without asking permission? And can such consent even be given? While most people would probably answer "yes" on both questions, there are those who say no on one or even both. The argument goes that even if you consented beforehand, you might be having a bad morning now and not want any contact -- there's no way to know until afterwards, and by then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.

to:

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand; beforehand ("permission"); for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. Is such stated consent even needed? Can't lovers just hug each other without asking permission? And can such consent even be given? While most people would probably answer "yes" on both questions, there are those who say no on one or even both. The argument goes that even if you consented beforehand, you might be having a bad morning now and not want any contact -- there's no way to know until afterwards, and by then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.
15th Feb '15 9:03:24 PM modgethanc
Is there an issue? Send a Message


To be "rational," you must be an adult or emancipated minor, must be judged to be able to make sound decisions, and must not be in some form of altered mental status such as intoxicated or unconscious. The classic example is when a paramedic finds a patient knocked out in a car accident and heavily injured, he does not have to wait for the patient to come to before beginning treatment and evacuation. A heroin addict who is semi-conscious cannot wave-away treatment for his overdose. A child or a person with schizophrenia cannot make many decisions at all.

to:

To be "rational," you must be an adult or emancipated minor, must be judged to be able to make sound decisions, and must not be in some form of altered mental status such as intoxicated or unconscious. The classic example is when a paramedic finds a patient knocked out in a car accident and heavily injured, he does not have to wait for the patient to come to before beginning treatment and evacuation. A heroin addict who is semi-conscious cannot wave-away treatment for his overdose. A child or a person with severe schizophrenia cannot make many decisions at all.
27th Jan '15 7:55:44 AM hbi2k
Is there an issue? Send a Message


!!!Permission
Permission is the "gold standard" of consent, where someone outright says it's okay if you ask them if you can do something, or they tell you to go ahead before you even ask. Permission is a higher standard than mere consent, as such, If everything involved permission, well, we'd never have problems with questions of whether consent had occurred. Permission differs from consent in one important point: it's explicit and it occurs in advance of whatever the other person is doing. Of course, this still has all the other problems raised about consent, below; does the person know what they are granting permission to do or do they have the capacity to grant permission?

to:

!!!Permission
Permission is the "gold standard" of consent, where someone outright says it's okay if you ask them if you can do something, or they tell you to go ahead before you even ask. Permission is a higher standard than mere consent, as such, If everything involved permission, well, we'd never have problems with questions of whether consent had occurred. Permission differs from consent in one important point: it's explicit and it occurs in advance of whatever the other person is doing. Of course, this still has all the other problems raised about consent, below; does the person know what they are granting permission to do or do they have the capacity to grant permission?



We think that consensus requires equality between the parties in terms of power and responsibility, which is why children and the mentally disabled are considered incapable of consenting with able adults. And with adults, we still have issues about them knowing what they are getting into and not getting exploited. See Consenting Adults and Informed Consent below.

to:

We think that consensus requires equality between the parties in terms of power and responsibility, which is why children and the mentally disabled are considered incapable of consenting with able adults. And with even between adults, we there can still have be issues about them knowing what they are getting into and not getting exploited.exploited, which is why the ethics get trickier when there are issues of power and authority (such as teachers and students, supervisors and employees, etc.). See Consenting Adults and Informed Consent below.



The idea that everyone involved is not only consenting, but also an adult -- and thus defined as a person capable of giving meaningful consent. Adults are allowed to do business, and also to have sex with each other.

Actually, the above is a bit of a circular definition, because it is saying that a consenting adult is a person capable of giving consent. Of course, this ignores another matter that some people want to ignore or sweep under the rug: teenagers having sex. Are they likely to understand what they are doing? Yes, probably. And is it reasonable to allow them to do so? Well, the fact that teenagers do have sex, whether or not their parents think they should indicates that it probably is reasonable.

So what has come about of this is a set of fixed rules established by law with some exceptions called "age of consent." In most places, you do not have to be a "consenting adult" you just have to be consenting and be old enough. In the United Kingdom, Canada, 30 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16. In 12 U.S. states, the age of consent is 17, and the other 8 states set it at 18. To add to this, there are exceptions. If a person is in a position of authority over them (like a coach or teacher) the student either has to be married to them or they have to be at least 18.

Then there are exceptions to the rules because it wasn't thought to be a good idea to put some kid in jail because they're having consensual sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who just happens to be below the normal age of consent and the two of them are close in age, so new rules got added that either made consensual sex with someone below the age of consent either legal or reduced the crime penalties, e.g. in Maryland the age of consent is 16, but it's legal to have sex with someone 15 if you're under 21. In Colorado the age of consent is 17, but it's legal to have consensual sex with someone 15 or 16 as long as you're no more than 10 years older. In California all sex with anyone under 18 is a crime, but the crime is reduced from a felony (with prison time of at least 3 years) to a misdemeanor (maximum jail time of six months and a fine) if they are no more than four years difference in age.

to:

The idea that everyone involved is not only consenting, but also an adult -- and thus defined as a person capable of giving meaningful consent. Adults are allowed to do business, and also to adult.

Most places
have sex with each other.

Actually, the above is a bit of a circular definition, because it is saying that a consenting adult is a person capable of giving consent. Of course, this ignores another matter that some people want to ignore or sweep under the rug: teenagers having sex. Are they likely to understand what they are doing? Yes, probably. And is it reasonable to allow them to do so? Well, the fact that teenagers do have sex, whether or not their parents think they should indicates that it probably is reasonable.

So what has come about of this is
a set of fixed rules established by law with some exceptions called "age of consent." In most places, you do not have to be a "consenting adult" you just have to be consenting and be old enough. " In the United Kingdom, Canada, 30 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16. In 12 U.S. states, the age of consent is 17, and the other 8 states set it at 18. To add to this, there are exceptions. If a person is in a position of authority over them (like a coach or teacher) the student either has to be married to them or they have to be at least 18.

18.

Then there are exceptions to the rules because it wasn't isn't thought to be a good idea to put some kid in jail because they're having consensual sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend who just happens to be below the normal age of consent and the two of them are close in age, so new rules got added that either made consensual sex with someone below the age of consent either legal or reduced the crime penalties, exceptions are sometimes made, e.g. in Maryland the age of consent is 16, but it's legal to have sex with someone 15 if you're under 21. In Colorado the age of consent is 17, but it's legal to have consensual sex with someone 15 or 16 as long as you're no more than 10 years older. In California all sex with anyone under 18 is a crime, but the crime is reduced from a felony (with prison time of at least 3 years) to a misdemeanor (maximum jail time of six months and a fine) if they are no more than four years difference in age.



We also have the issue of people not wanting to formally ask each other for consent all the time. For most people in a relationship, it would feel quite awkward if your partner was never allowed to touch you without having to ask for consent. You'd probably think it was weird if they always asked you for consent.

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand (which is permission, as noted earlier) -- for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. Is such stated consent even needed -- can't lovers just hug each other without asking permission? And can such consent even be given? While most people would probably answer "yes" on both questions, there are those who say no on one or even both. The argument goes that even if you consented beforehand, you might be having a bad morning now and not want any contact -- there's no way to know until afterwards, and by then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.

to:

We also have the issue of people not wanting to formally ask each other for consent all the time. For most people in a relationship, it would feel quite awkward if your partner was never allowed to touch you without having to explicitly ask for consent. You'd probably think it was weird if they always asked you for consent.

consent every time.

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand (which is permission, as noted earlier) -- beforehand; for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. Is such stated consent even needed -- can't needed? Can't lovers just hug each other without asking permission? And can such consent even be given? While most people would probably answer "yes" on both questions, there are those who say no on one or even both. The argument goes that even if you consented beforehand, you might be having a bad morning now and not want any contact -- there's no way to know until afterwards, and by then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.
This list shows the last 10 events of 50. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.Consent