Can a slave consent?

I was thinking about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, and this came up. At first, I had assumed that Thomas Jefferson just raped Sally Hemings, but my later research on the subject made that seem unlikely to me. But then again, I thought, does it really matter? Could sex between a master and a slave really be considered consensual in any case? And just to clarify things, BDSM slaves aren't relevant to this discussion, since they already gave their consent before they became slaves.

And that got me to wondering: does consent require autonomy? Can a slave really consent to any important life decision?

I suppose it depends on how much desperation is involved, and how many restrictions are set in place.

A slave can definitely consent, but it might be unclear as to whether they actually are at any given time depending on how much fear is in place in the setup and how things are initiated. Chances are being ordered to have sex is probably not a good sign, but on the other hand if the slave is the one starting things in the first place there's not much question.

edited 27th Mar '11 8:50:23 PM by Pykrete

A slave is property, so no.

They still have feelings and opinions, even though they don't have much freedom to express it. I agree with Pykrete.

edited 27th Mar '11 9:18:16 PM by Blurring

A slave can consent, but that is unlikely to happen given the situation.

The question here isn't "can a slave consent". It's "can a master really love a slave and not free them?" I'd say that the second question is far more damning of TJ than the former.

To be fair, freeing them was basically an invitation to let them get kidnapped again and sold to someone worse, so the loving action could easily be to keep them around and treat them well until external conditions are less dismal.

edited 27th Mar '11 9:21:26 PM by Pykrete

No the question was "can a slave consent." I thought it was pretty self evident.

-sigh- Quit with the snarking. "The question" was not being used to refer to the titular question of the thread, but rather to the question that actually matters in questions about the morality of TJ's relationship with his slave.

At that time, freed slaves and even those born free, but are of African origin, are regularly kidnapped and sold as slaves. Keeping her as a slave might be the best thing for her. People are a lot less likely to mess with Thomas Jefferson's property.

edited 27th Mar '11 9:30:16 PM by Blurring

This post was thumped by the Eldritch Flyswatter of Horror

Yes!

dashes off to Fetishes

^ i did not need that image in my head

I think it's a tricky question. While nothing prevents a slave from physically stating that they do consent, such a massive power difference between the two parties would make it hard to tell whether or not any consent given was out of coercion.

It also depends on whether or not any laws are in place to prevent a master from just taking the slave by force whether they consent or not, and whether such laws would be enforceable.

This. A slave can consent but their owner doesn't really need to care whether or not they do.

That's kind of the point of why slavery is bad. The owner doesn't have to behave cruelly, but there's generally no law stopping them if they want to be.

Ultimately I'd have to say no. Sally Hemings, may of not be damaged by their relationship, she may of greatly enjoyed it. But as a slave she is legally unable to say no.

If you point a gun at someone's head and asked for their wallet is it not theft? Sure they might be glad to get rid of it, but they can't stop you from taking it off them if you choose to. It's the same for sally Hemings. She may not refused, she may of conceivably initiated it. But she didn't have consensual sex with Thomas Jefferson as she wasn't able to give consent.

edited 27th Mar '11 10:00:37 PM by joeyjojo

</thread>

edited 27th Mar '11 9:58:29 PM by annebeeche

If someone point a gun to my head and asked for my wallet, I'm coerced to give it to him. Nothing is consensual about me giving him my wallet on personal level. I may be happy that I escape with my life but I'm still mad at having to give my wallet to him.

edited 27th Mar '11 10:05:45 PM by Blurring

Unless you can cite for me a law or other argument that supports that slaves were legally unable to say no in the time period, this is Begging the Question.

Sally was a slave. She doesn't have rights by definition.

I'd say it's the same issue as "Can a child consent to a sexual relationship with an adult?" There've supposedly been some situations where a child did, but the sheer power difference makes it impossible to tell for certain. That's why it's illegal to screw a kid. (If you think this is too tasteless, then look at it in terms of "Can a soldier consent to sexual relations with an officer?" There's a reason we've coined the term "command rape.")

edited 27th Mar '11 11:57:44 PM by feotakahari

Well... not quite. There's also the issue of whether or not a child is capable of understanding what they're consenting to.

I suppose theoretically, if the slave owner made a point of telling them that there would be no negative consequences if they refused, and was a decent enough person that the slave could count on them to keep to that...

In the event of that happening. Totally yes. Who cares if the law says screw all slaves, for them at least, it will be consensual, and legal of course.

There is an inherent power imbalance in the situation, so this one would say "no". Note that I am not saying that a slave cannot be genuinely willing - they can - but it is almost impossible to establish that no coercion, even implied, took place. Hmm, not sure if this comparison is going to fly, but it's the similar reason with why a minor cannot be considered "consenting" to sex with adult even though there are some who are more than willing. Because the power balance is shifted in such a way that makes withholding consent more difficult.

Now, imagine a guy (or gal) pointing a a you and asking you to do something for them. No, they do not say that they'll shoot you if you won't, they even say "no pressure" - but you know for sure that they can shoot you if sufficiently angered. Does it differ from a situation where a stranger simply asks for a favour? Can it be said that quite a lot of people would get along with "request" in the first case but not in the second one? And how do you establish who would say yes with or without gun, and who would refuse if gun wasn't involved?