History UsefulNotes / Consent

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
As said in the Discussion page the last time you made a similar edit, I have been able to find no legal or ethical reference in which the distinction you make between "consent" and "permission" is drawn. If you can provide some reference or citation to the contrary, please do so.
!!!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.
26th Jan '15 11:40:30 PM Tdarcos
Is there an issue? Send a Message
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?

to:
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. Rather than worry about all of these rules and exceptions, for the rest of this article we'll presume we're referring to people who are all at least 18 years of 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. 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. For implied or generic consent to work, though, it's necessary for those involved to ''find out'' what they like. You can consent to "experiment," but in that situation, it isn't clear what you've consented to. There is a lot of controversy over what constitutes an acceptable context for experimentation:
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 ask for consent. \n\n 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. Couples that know each other will often have a sense of how their partner feels, or may simply try intimacy and if the other person gives an indication or says they're not interested, then they stop, and it's understood they've not consented, because they know each other the attempt isn't "wrong," and by stopping they show that they respect the other person. For implied or generic consent like that to work, though, it's necessary for those involved to ''find out'' what they like. You can consent to "experiment," but in that situation, it isn't clear what you've consented to. There is a lot of controversy over what constitutes an acceptable context for experimentation:
17th Oct '14 8:27:32 AM hbi2k
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Taking this to the Discussion page.
However, consent is not a simple matter... Also note that 'consent' is not 'permission'. Consent is a much lower standard, it merely means a reasonable belief the person agreed to something. Permission is an explicit agreement. Permission always includes consent, but consent only implies permission.
to:
However, consent is not a simple matter... Also note that 'consent' is not 'permission'. Consent is a much lower standard, it merely means a reasonable belief the person agreed to something. Permission is an explicit agreement. Permission always includes consent, but consent only implies permission. matter....

Now, in that respect you can have consent or permission. If a guy takes a girl into his bedroom, takes off her clothes and gets in bed with her and proceeds to fondle her and go on from there, as long as she's conscious and old enough to be considered able to consent to sex, that's okay. As long as she doesn't say no, it's considered he has consent, even if he has sex with her without asking her first. What the law looks at, if the issue comes up, is whether she could have changed her mind or did do so. That's why having sex with a drunk girl who passes out is rape (she can't tell you if she changed her mind), but not if you get inside her and she complains and you stop (you had reason to believe she consented, and because she told you she didn't and you stopped immediately, you are considered not to have acted improperly). However, the sky's the limit if you have permission. If your regular girlfriend tells you you can have sex with her any time you want, even if she's asleep or drunk, then she's given you permission, and as long as she gave it freely, means she's not likely to complain you raped her if she wakes up in the middle of something you started while she was asleep. She still has the right to change her mind at any time, however, and you generally have to stop immediately if she does.
to:
Now, in that respect you can have consent or permission. If a guy takes a girl into his bedroom, takes off her clothes and gets in bed with her and proceeds to fondle her and go on from there, as long as she's conscious and old enough to be considered able to consent to sex, that's okay. As long as she doesn't say no, it's considered he has consent, even if he has sex with her without asking her first. What the law looks at, if the issue comes up, is whether she could have changed her mind or did do so. That's why having sex with a drunk girl who passes out is rape (she can't tell you if she changed her mind), but not if you get inside her and she complains and you stop (you had reason to believe she consented, and because she told you she didn't and you stopped immediately, you are considered not to have acted improperly). However, the sky's the limit if you have permission. If your regular girlfriend tells you you can have sex with her any time you want, even if she's asleep or drunk, then she's given you permission, and as long as she gave it freely, means she's not likely to complain you raped her if she wakes up in the middle of something you started while she was asleep. She still has the right to change her mind at any time, however, and you generally have to stop immediately if she does.

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand -- for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. (Technically, as noted earlier, this is not mere consent, it's ''permission''.) 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 -- for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. (Technically, as noted earlier, this is not mere consent, it's ''permission''.) 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.
17th Oct '14 2:38:01 AM Tdarcos
Is there an issue? Send a Message
However, consent is not a simple matter...
to:
However, consent is not a simple matter... matter... Also note that 'consent' is not 'permission'. Consent is a much lower standard, it merely means a reasonable belief the person agreed to something. Permission is an explicit agreement. Permission always includes consent, but consent only implies permission.

Now, in that respect you can have consent or permission. If a guy takes a girl into his bedroom, takes off her clothes and gets in bed with her and proceeds to fondle her and go on from there, as long as she's conscious and old enough to be considered able to consent to sex, that's okay. As long as she doesn't say no, it's considered he has consent, even if he has sex with her without asking her first. What the law looks at, if the issue comes up, is whether she could have changed her mind or did do so. That's why having sex with a drunk girl who passes out is rape (she can't tell you if she changed her mind), but not if you get inside her and she complains and you stop (you had reason to believe she consented, and because she told you she didn't and you stopped immediately, you are considered not to have acted improperly). However, consent is the sky's the limit if you have permission. If your regular girlfriend tells you you can have sex with her any time you want, even if she's asleep or drunk, then she's given you permission, and as long as she gave it freely, means she's not a simple matter... likely to complain you raped her if she wakes up in the middle of something you started while she was asleep. She still has the right to change her mind at any time, however, and you generally have to stop immediately if she does.

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 -- for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well with love. (Technically, as noted earlier, this is not mere consent, it's ''permission''.) 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.

There are some cases where that might be acceptable; it is impossible to ask for consent to talk to someone, for instance, since that would itself require you to talk to them.[[note]]Exceptions are granted if you're communicating through a liaison, but that means your liaison has to deal with these issues instead.[[/note]] It is also common to block a person's path to get their attention, shake their hand, and occasionally even enter their home without asking first, and without being explicitly given permission. These things are established as acceptable by conventions like body language, and by the concept of harassment--you may have the right to talk to whomever you like, but they can revoke that 'default consent' by telling you to go away, and can even sue you for failing to do so.
to:
There are some cases where that might be acceptable; it is impossible to ask for consent to talk to someone, for instance, since that would itself require you to talk to them.[[note]]Exceptions are granted if you're communicating through a liaison, but that means your liaison has to deal with these issues instead.[[/note]] (Actually, that's not completely true, because we've had a method for decades to do exactly that; kids learn in school to ''raise their hand'' to ask for permission to speak.) It is also common to block a person's path to get their attention, shake their hand, and occasionally even enter their home without asking first, and without being explicitly given permission. These things are established as acceptable by conventions like body language, and by the concept of harassment--you may have the right to talk to whomever you like, but they can revoke that 'default consent' by telling you to go away, and can even sue you for failing to do so.

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 - field sobriety or breathalyzer - is just not a viable defense, and in some states is taken as an admission of guilt. 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 - field sobriety blood, urine or breathalyzer - is just not a viable defense, and in some states is while refusal cannot be taken as an admission of guilt.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.

# 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 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 could be attacked by a robber 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.
This list shows the last 10 events of 47. Show all.