History UsefulNotes / Consent

Being able to stop without external consequences means that you're not being [[{{Blackmail}} 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) or refuse to see you again, but they can't hurt or injure you, nor cause you problems with other people. Consent can be more problematic when there is a power imbalance. What if a boss asks for consent to sex from an employee? She may say "yes" because she needs the job, not because she wants to have sex. What if a man drives a woman to his isolated country cabin in the wilderness and then asks for her consent? (she doesn't have a car and it's 100 miles from her home).

Being able to stop without external consequences means that you're not being [[{{Blackmail}} 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) or refuse to see you again, but they can't hurt or injure you, nor cause you problems with other people.

!!Consent and Implied Consent — Medicine

Furthermore, consent 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 teenagers and adults. And even between people of age, 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 Of-Age Parties and Informed Consent''' below.

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 their parents think. It may be awkward as all hell, but a child choosing to be open and honest with their parents about their (prospective) sex life is ''far'' less dangerous than the alternatives. If their parents are okay with it, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, and they might even ''help'' by permitting the couple some privacy or supplying condoms or some such; the couple wouldn't turn each other in, and their parents won't either, so the police don't know and nobody's getting in trouble. Then there can be cases where the parents are a bit ''too'' open to the idea and actively enforce it and/or someone in the couple is flagging about whether they actually want to "do it" or not. In these cases the couple has not given clear consent to each other and the act should not proceed; the parents ''cannot'' give consent to sex for their own child, and to attempt to do so is the very definition of illegal and invites all the consequences thereof. In times like this, sometimes the parents vetoing the encounter is just what the unsure couple needs to hear. And of course, if the parents follow the letter of the law and give the couple a BluntNo from the onset, then that's that, and defiance of this means all punishments from either the parents or the law apply.

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 when the two of them are close in age — for example, a 15-year-old and 16-year-old, in some places. So exceptions are sometimes made; for example, 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 17-year-old boy is having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, ''both'' are committing a crime)[[labelnote:*]]This situation (and others related to it, i.e., if the act was filmed regardless of mutual agreement, both would be considered to be creating child pornography) and dueling are perhaps the only crimes where both parties can equally be considered both victim and perpetrator.[[/labelnote]], 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.

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 their parents think. It may be awkward as all hell, but a child choosing to be open and honest with their parents about their (prospective) sex life is ''far'' less dangerous than the alternatives. If their parents are okay with it, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, and they might even ''help'' by permitting the couple some privacy or supplying condoms or some such; the couple wouldn't turn each other in, and their parents won't either, so the police don't know and nobody's going to jail. Then there can be cases where the parents are a bit ''too'' open to the idea and actively enforce it and/or someone in the couple is flagging about whether they actually want to "do it" or not. In these cases the couple has not given clear consent to each other and the act should not proceed; the parents ''cannot'' give consent to sex for their own child, and to attempt to do so is the very definition of illegal and invites all the consequences thereof. In times like this, sometimes the parents vetoing the encounter is just what the unsure couple needs to hear. And of course, if the parents follow the letter of the law and give the couple a BluntNo from the onset, then that's that, and defiance of this means all punishments from either the parents or the law apply.

However, it's important to remember that even in states and countries where sex between two minors is always illegal (like California), it's very unlikely the kids will go to jail if they are caught. Unlike adult courts, which mainly focus on crime and punishment, juvenile courts focus more on rehabilitation and deterring children from future crime, meaning judges must take the context of the crime into consideration before deciding what the appropriate response would be. In the case of this law: If two kids have sex, but they were of similar age and were both willing, then they will not go to jail. On the other hand, if a 16-year-old boy had actually coerced his 15-year-old girlfriend into sex, then he could go to jail [[labelnote:*]] but the girlfriend won't as the boyfriend was willing[[/labelnote]].

Most places have a set of fixed rules established by law (with some exceptions) called "age of consent." In the United Kingdom, Canada, 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16. In 8 U.S. states, the age of consent is 17, and the other 11 states set it at 18. Outside of North America it gets murkier; Japan's age of consent is 13 (which is partly why most modern Japanese {{Main/Anime}} is capable of GettingCrapPastTheRadar), parts of Mexico have it as low as ''12'', and some countries in Africa and Asia skirt the issue entirely by vetoing sex [[LetsWaitAWhile unless the couple is legally married]] (which itself has a varying age restriction depending on the country).

Most places have a set of fixed rules established by law (with some exceptions) called "age of consent." In the United Kingdom, Canada, 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the age of consent is 16. In 8 U.S. states, the age of consent is 17, and the other 11 states set it at 18. Outside of North America it gets murkier; Japan's age of consent is infamously 13 (which is partly why most modern Japanese {{Main/Anime}} is capable of GettingCrapPastTheRadar), parts of Mexico have it as low as ''12'', and some countries in Africa and Asia skirt the issue entirely by vetoing sex [[LetsWaitAWhile unless the couple is legally married]] (which itself is given an age barrier).

A case worth mentioning is what happens if someone moves from one nation to another where age of consent is different. In the case of a 16-year-old moving from Japan (13) to California (18), they would simply have to go by the California's consent laws. But what about the reverse, moving to Japan to do something (or someone) that would be below age of consent in California? It turns out most nations have additional laws to discourage this, most of them stating the eloping couple would still have to follow their nation of origin's consent laws. Say an illegal couple featuring an adult and a 15-year-old born in California moves to Japan to consummate their relationship; they're basically ''announcing'' that they're breaking Californian law and will be tried under Californian law, being persecuted for their original crime as well as every sort of "evading justice" charge under the sun.

A case worth mentioning is what happens if someone moves from one nation to another where age of consent is different. In the case of a 16-year-old moving from Japan (13) to California (18), they would simply have to go by the California's consent laws. But what about the reverse, moving to Japan to do something (or someone) that would be below age of consent in California? The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreigners (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this sort of thing, most of them stating that the violator will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin. Say an illegal couple featuring an adult and a 15-year-old born in California moves to Japan to consummate their relationship; they're basically ''announcing'' that they're breaking Californian law and will be tried by Californian law, and will consequently get slammed with every "evading justice" charge under the sun on top of the original crime.

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 [[labelnote:*]]Of course, there would be the situations where a younger girl with understanding parents might have an older boyfriend, but with the parents perhaps being a bit ''too'' understanding and the boyfriend a bit ''too'' forward with what he'd like them to do together, and maybe the girl wants to but at the same time she kind of doesn't, but her boyfriend is really nice and not doing anything wrong and her parents really like him and everyone is being really honest and up front with what's going on and nobody's trying to go behind anyone's back, but maybe just this once, her parents saying "No" might be just what she needs to hear. There are parents that will go by the letter of the law in terms of their children's liaisons and others will slip condoms into their daughter's dresser drawer and tell her to clean the sheets when they're done, or anywhere in between. All valid approaches, and the pros of a child being open and honest with his or her parents regarding their sex life generally outweigh the cons, but in no way does a parent's consent substitute for that of the child's. A parent agreeing to sex on the child's behalf is the very definition of illegal and, as the above example shows, even being overly permissive can create an unintended pressure on the child to submit; conversely, age of consent laws are there for a reason, and if parents don't feel that a physical relationship on that level is appropriate (or even if they're not involved at all) and the sexual act proceeds anyway, then '''all''' the consequences thereof can come into play. They could anyway. There's a line between practicality and pure legality. Again, in this case, open and honest communication between parent and child in this case can solve more problems than it causes.[[/labelnote]].

Another case worth mentioning is what happens if someone moves from one nation to another where age of consent is different. In the case of a 16-year-old moving from Japan (13) to California (18), they would simply have to go by the California's consent laws. But what about the reverse, moving to Japan to do something (or someone) that would be below age of consent in California? The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreigners (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this sort of thing, most of them stating that the violator will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin. Say an illegal couple featuring an adult and a 15-year-old born in California moves to Japan to consummate their relationship; they're basically ''announcing'' that they're breaking Californian law and will be tried by Californian law, and will consequently get slammed with every "evading justice" charge under the sun on top of the original crime.

Another case worth mentioning is what happens if someone moves from one nation to another where age of consent is different. In the case of a 16-year-old moving from Japan (13) to California (18), they would simply have to go by the California's consent laws. But what about the reverse, moving to Japan to do something (or someone) that would be below age of consent in California? The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreigners (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this sort of thing, most of them stating that the violator will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin; they're basically ''announcing'' that they're breaking the law and will consequently get slammed with every "evading justice" charge under the sun in addition to the original crime.

Another case worth mentioning is what happens if someone moves from one nation to another where age of consent is different. In the case of a 16-year-old moving from Japan (13) to California (18), they would simply have to go by the California's consent laws. But what about the reverse, moving to Japan to do something (or someone) that would be below age of consent in California? The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreigners (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this sort of thing, most of them stating that the violator will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin; they're basically ''announcing'' that they're breaking the law and will consequently get slammed with every "evading justice" charge under the sun.

Another case worth mentioning is what happens if someone moves from one nation to another where age of consent is different. In the case of someone above the age of consent in Japan (13) but below it in California (18), they would simply have to go by the California's laws. But what happens if someone moves from California to Japan -- say, an illegal couple featuring a 16-year-old decides to [[{{Elopement}} elope]]? The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreign couples (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this, most of them stating that the caught couple will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin. Trying to flagrantly skirt consent laws like this leaves the violators in ''much'' hotter water than they would've already been in.

Another case worth mentioning is what happens if a couple defying one nation's age of consent decides to [[{{Elopement}} elope]] to another nation where consent is less strict -- say, a 16-year-old in an illegal relationship, originating from California where age of consent is 18, absconds to Japan where age of consent is 13. The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreign couples (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this, most of them stating that the caught couple will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin; the example pairing hailing from California would be tried by Californian law, age of consent included. This unsurprisingly lands them with ''much worse'' charges than they would've already had.

Another case worth mentioning is what happens if a couple defying one nation's age of consent decides to [[{{Elopement elope}}]] to another nation where consent is less strict -- say, a 16-year-old in an illegal relationship, originating from California where age of consent is 18, absconds to Japan where age of consent is 13. The answer: it fails, horribly. Foreign couples (especially such suspicious ones) aren't hard to track down, and an increasing number of countries and states have laws in place expressly to discourage this, most of them stating that the caught couple will be tried according to the laws of their nation of origin; the example pairing hailing from California would be tried by Californian law, age of consent included. This unsurprisingly lands them with ''much worse'' charges than they would've already had.

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

This is the pitfall with Informed Consent: be it due to misunderstanding, mental handicap, or youth, that someone ''should not'' or ''cannot'' properly give consent, but knowingly or unknowingly did so. Should the law decide this to be the case for the affected party, then the violator has committed a crime and will be tried accordingly, sometimes even if they themselves were similarly misinformed/handicapped/naïve. The victim likely won't face the wrath of the law in this case, but they will still have to deal with any physical, mental, financial, and social fallout, which depending on the case can be just as bad or even worse.

You can preemptively revoke consent to certain procedures with an advanced directive, the most famous of which is a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order. A patient with an advanced directive has stated their wishes and those must be honored regardless of the outcome or objections from family members. Another strategy for handling these decisions is appointing a surrogate to make decisions for you, such as with a power of attorney. Furthermore, in a few special situations, such as getting an abortion or treatment for [=STDs=], a minor does not have to consult their parents and can procure services without their parents' consent [[labelnote:*]]This can change from state to state, as there are always new laws being passed and others struck down all the time regarding abortion rights and restrictions and minors' reproductive health, along with an ever-changing array of legalities, procedural hurdles, and prerequisites. They exist and [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment that's all we've got to say about that]]. Generally speaking, if you're above your state's age of consent, chances are good you can access these facilities, but again, your mileage may vary.[[/labelnote]]. Finally, an advanced directive must be presented before the crisis situation hits and your family cannot simply vouch that you have one (as they may not have your wishes at heart). Without a DNR or power of attorney, medical personnel are assumed to have your implied consent, regardless of what you told your family. Don't just tell your family any end-of-life or emergency care instructions. Put it in writing.

And then there’s the issue of potentially hazardous body modifications often performed on children (or babies) for reasons that don’t involve immediate need for medical attention, often as a traditional rite of passage; the most notable among these in the West is circumcision, a procedure the opponents of which usually bring up consent as an argument. [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment And that is all we are going to say on the matter.]] Ear piercings performed on babies or young children are generally allowed, as they are minimally invasive, have no debilitating effect, and can be healed at a later date. Anything more invasive or permanent, such as body mods or tattoos, will almost certainly be rejected even with parental consent.

* 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, and no less.[[note]]If the resulting injuries end up being fatal, then it’s ''manslaughter'', or possibly even ''murder''.[[/note]]

Furthermore, consent 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 Of-Age Parties and Informed Consent''' below.

While both constructs are useful, they are far from waterproof. What if someone is of age but not informed? Scams are not cool! Or what if someone who's not of age is "informed" and consents to something that is [[NotSafeForWork Not Safe For Underage People]] and [[MyGodWhatHaveIDone later regrets it]]? One of the main points of having age limits is that kids should not be forced to take that kind of responsibility! It's ''not'' their own fault if they get into [[HarmfulToMinors a situation that hurts them]], no matter [[ItSeemedLikeAGoodIdeaAtTheTime how good an idea it seemed at the time]]. And also, what if someone is technically adult and technically informed, but has a mental handicap that makes them unfit to make the decision?

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. That said, involuntary treatment for mental illness is controversial. Some say it can further stress an ill person.

This leads to problematic situations, and as such there are some exceptions. For example, parents cannot deny life-saving treatment to a child because it contradicts the parent's religious views. In this case, the physician is empowered to legally make that decision against the child's and parents' wishes to save that child. When a person's mental state or drug intoxication makes them ineligible to make a rational decision, a physician can be empowered to order treatment despite these objections. All of these situations fall under implied consent, with the idea that a person who looks back on the situation rationally or as an adult would likely consent to receive treatment and so it should be assumed on behalf of those who cannot make the decision themselves. As soon as a person "comes to their senses," they can revoke consent immediately.

This is meant to cover all the bases to a reasonable extent. Safe and sane includes adulthood when adulthood is needed, and being informed to the extent one needs to be informed.

# When can a person be considered sufficiently sane for a certain activity? There is room for some really valid discussion here, regarding, for example, the line between doing SSC BDSM and being self-destructive. However, some people land in a position that people with not-so-severe mental problems consider robs them of their rights as adults. Some people have difficulty communicating when in a heightened emotional state. That makes it impractical for them to communicate during sex, even if they have a {{Safeword}}. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to have kinky sex? Does it mean they shouldn't be allowed to practice martial arts?

Furthermore, consent 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.

!!Consenting Adults

The idea that everyone involved is not only consenting, but also an adult.

!!Problems with Consenting Adults and Informed Consent

While both constructs are useful, they are far from waterproof. What if someone is an adult but not informed? Scams are not cool! Or what if someone who's not adult is "informed" and consents to something that is [[NotSafeForWork Not Safe For Kids]] and [[MyGodWhatHaveIDone later regrets it]]? One of the main points of having age limits is that kids should not be forced to take that kind of responsibility! It's ''not'' their own fault if they get into [[HarmfulToMinors a situation that hurts them]], no matter [[ItSeemedLikeAGoodIdeaAtTheTime how good an idea it seemed at the time]]. And also, what if someone is technically adult and technically informed, but has a mental handicap that makes them unfit to make the decision?

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.

Finally, another area of health care where informed consent comes into play is billing and insurance, at least in the United States. While patients sign forms upon receiving medical care agreeing that they consent to pay the cost of treatment, or whatever portion was not covered by insurance, oftentimes those costs are opaque, inconsistent between hospitals/states, and difficult to predict in advance. A common occurrence is for patients to consent to undergo procedures or be treated by a doctor without being informed that the treatment isn't covered by the patient's insurance -- or not to consent at all, being unconscious at the time (ambulance fees are a frequent example of this). Sometimes, these fees aren't associated with specific treatment at all but with simply being in the emergency room at all (the "facility fee," meant to cover the hospital's operating costs). Then, the patient is surprised by a large bill in the mail weeks or months later, which can sometimes range upwards tens of thousands of dollars. Whether patients consented to these, or would have consented with full knowledge of the price tag, has come under much discussion recently.

* 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, and no less [[note]]if the resulting injuries end up being fatal, then it’s ''manslaughter'', or possibly even ''murder''[[/note]].

* 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 [[note]]unless the resulting injuries end up being fatal — ''then'' it’s manslaughter, or possibly even murder[[/note]].

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 check 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.

You can preemptively revoke consent to certain procedures with an advanced directive, the most famous of which is a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order. A patient with an advanced directive has stated their wishes and those must be honored regardless of the outcome or objections from family members. Another strategy for handling these decisions is appointing a surrogate to make decisions for you, such as with a power of attorney. Furthermore, in a few special situations, such as getting an abortion or treatment for [=STDs=], a minor does not have to consult their parents and can procure services without their parents' consent. Finally, an advanced directive must be presented before the crisis situation hits and your family cannot simply vouch that you have one (as they may not have your wishes at heart). Without a DNR or power of attorney, medical personnel are assumed to have your implied consent, regardless of what you told your family. Don't just tell your family any end-of-life or emergency care instructions. Put it in writing.

And then there’s the issue of potentially hazardous body modifications often performed on children (or babies) for reasons that don’t involve immediate need for medical attention, often as a traditional rite of passage; the most notable among these in the West is circumcision, a procedure the opponents of which usually bring up consent as an argument. [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment And that is all we are going to say on the matter.]]

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.