History UsefulNotes / Consent

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.

There's a few situations where a DNR or advance directive preventing care go out the window. Generally, pre-hospital responders (EMTs, paramedics, even civilian bystanders) aren't bound by it as there's usually no way to verify it in the field and they respond in situations where minutes, even seconds, can count. Some ambulance corps will allow you to file a DNR with them in case they need to respond, but this is far from universal. Also, ''any'' overt indication that you want assistance, even in a hospital setting with an advanced directive or power of attorney on file, renders those orders invalid.

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.

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.[[hottip:*:Exceptions are granted if you're communicating through a liaison, but that means your liaison has to deal with these issues instead.]] 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 problem with this is that some people consider others to have given implied consent even when no such implication was intended at all. The most infamous version of this is guys who believe that if a woman is wearing a short skirt (or if she's not wearing a veil) then she's implying that she wants unknown men to stare at her, touch her, or [[SexIsEvilAndIAmHorny worse]]. This have given some people (mostly women) a certain aversion to the concept of implied consent.

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 schizophrenic cannot make many decisions at all.

A patient who is losing consciousness who has not revoked consent continues to give implied consent right until they are out. For example, a patient who has been wheeled to the OR and prepared for surgery could refuse care and be wheeled right out of the OR. Once the patient is under (presumably having not objected while conscious), implied consent governs the entire procedure until the patient awakens again.

The problem with this is that some people consider others to have given implied consent even when no such implication was intended at all. The most infamous version of this is guys who believe that if a woman is wearing a short skirt (or if she's not wearing a veil) then she's implying that she wants unknown men to stare at her, touch her, or [[SexIsEvilAndIAmHorny worse]]. This have given some people (mostly women) a certain allergy to the concept of implied consent.

# 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 doing PeopleSitOnChairs 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 can be handled by giving consent beforehand -- for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with ... well [[IfYouKnowWhatIMean 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.

* All and any sexual acts, including fondling -- for example, grabbing a stranger's ass can be considered sexual harassment.

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.[[hottip:*:Exceptions are granted if you're communicating through a liaison, but that means your liaison has to deal with these issues instead.]] It is also common to block a person's path to get their attention, shake their hand, and occasionally even enter their homes 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.

!!!Risk Awareness Consensual Kink

# If you refuse to discuss safety and sanity, the people who consider these issues fundamentally important will simply ignore you.

However, consent is not unproblematic...

# 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, in particular those on the autistic spectrum, have difficulty using language 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?

# The issues of how safe and sane something really is are interesting and important issues. It's often better to debate them then to bypass the issues.

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand -- for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with {{Snugglebunnies}}. 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.

* 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 harassment.

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 NotSafeForKids and 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 a situation that hurts them, not matter 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?

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand--for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with {{Snugglebunnies}}. 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.

The first two reasons are also the reason why the safety-and-consent trope is called SafeSaneAndConsensual rather then RACK. Limiting the trope to kinky sexuality would make it too narrow, and the debate about where the line should be drawn is what makes it a trope in the first place.

The discussion about consent is particulary intense when it comes to the sexuality known as [[CasualKink BDSM]], since this sexuality touches both the first and the second type, and sometimes also the third. (BDSM stands for Bondage, Dominance-games and Sado-Masochism. Started out as a combination of the old terms Bondage&Dicipline, Dominance&Submission and Sadism&Masochism.) However, the discussion is not in any way limited to that particular field: it also includes mainstream sexuality as well as all kinds of issues that has nothing to do with sexuality.

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand--for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with {{Snugglebunnies}}. 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 then it's too late. Others would argue that this extreme defense against sexual oppression becomes oppressive in itself.

The problem with this is that some people consider others to have given implied consent even when no such implication was intended at all. The most infamous version of this is guys who believe that if a woman is wearing a short skirt (or if she's not wearing a veil) then she's implying that she wants unknown men to stare at her, touch her or [[SexIsEvilAndIAmHorny worse]]. This have given some people (mostly women) a certain allergy to the concept of implied consent.

As human beings, we all have the right to our own lives and the control over our own bodies. Thus, doing something serious to someone else's body requires consent. Act that require consent include:

# 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. If a guy gets a clinical depression or a bipolar disorder diagnosis, does that mean that he should be barred from martial arts and sexuality? That anyone who agrees to practice Karate with him, or to have sex with him (kinky or otherwise), should be labeled an abuser? Hopefully not!
** Although this problem can be dealt with if you add to it the idea that the sane in question is the kind that means you can understand what you're consenting to and all of the risks and aren't a raving moonbrain.

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[[hottip:*:unless you're communicating through a liaison, but that means your liaison has to deal with these issues instead]]. It is also common to block a person's path to get their attention, shake their hand, and occasionally even enter their homes 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 get away from the previously described problems with SSC, some people in the BDSM community prefer instead to talk about RACK: Risk Awareness Consensual Kink. This pacifies the most extreme demands for perfect safety and perfect sanity. However, this choice has three problems of its own.

# Bypassing the issues lets the most extreme demands for total safety and flawless sanity win on walk-over.

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. Some people disagree with this being an option -- not only for themselves, but in general.

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 (unless you're communicating through a liaison). It is also common to block a person's path to get their attention, shake their hand, and occasionally even enter their homes 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.

* 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 guy is assault, no more and no less.

The idea that everyone involved are 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.

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

While both constructs are useful, they are far from waterproof. What if someone is an adult but not informed? Scams is not cool! Or what if someone who's not adult is "informed" and consent to something that is NotSafeForKids and they later regret. 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 a situation that hurts them, not matter how good an idea it seemed at the time. And also, what if someone is technically adult and technically informed, but have a mental handicap that make him unfit to make the decision?

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand--for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with {{Snugglebunnies}}. 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 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. Some people disagree with this being an option - not only for themselves, but in general.

The problem with this is that some people consider others to have given implied consent even when no such implication was intended at all. The most infamous version of this is guys who believe that if a woman is wearing a short skirt (or if she's not wearing a veil) then she's implying that she want unknown men to stare at her, touch her or [[SexIsEvilAndIAmHorny worse]]. This have given some people (mostly women) a certain allergy to the concept of implied consent.

One of the most popular ways of trying to deal with all these problems is the moral code known as {{SSC}}: Safe Sane And Consensual.

* Sane means that everyone involved are at an accountable mental capacity: Noone is drugged down, too insane, or too young or immature.

# 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 you 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 doing PeopleSitOnChairs without having the chair bolted to the floor and the person tied to the chair - because, what if he would happen to fall off the chair? On the other end of the spectrum, some other people consider lethally hazardous activities to be "safe" even as others insist that they are hugely underestimating the risks.
# 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. If a guy gets a clinical depression or a bipolar disorder diagnosis, does that mean that he should be barred from martial arts and sexuality? That any man who agrees to practice Karate with him, and any woman willing to have sex with him (kinky or otherwise), should be labeled an abuser? Hopefully not!

To get away from the previously described problems with SSC, some people in the BDSM community prefer instead to talk about RACK: Risk Awareness Consensual Kink. This pacifies the most extreme demands for perfect safety and perfect sanity. However, this choice has three problems of it's own.

# The issues of how safe and sane something really is are interesting and important issues. It's often batter to debate them then to bypass the issues.

The first two reasons are also the reason why the safety-and-consent trope is called SafeSaneAndConsensual rather then RACK. Limiting the trope to kinky sexuality would make it too narrow, and the debate about where the line should be drawn is whats make it a trope in the first place.

This can be handled by giving consent beforehand--for instance, asking your significant partner to wake you up with {{Snugglebunnies}}. For 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.

Also, some people really enjoy [[{{Snugglebunnies}} getting woken in the morning by their partner cuddling them]]. And yet, there are people who sincerely thinks that this can never be acceptable: Touching someone who is asleep is always abusive, accordingto these people - even if it's a couple who has been married for 20 years, and the sleeping person has previously said that he enjoys being woken up that way.

To most people, it is obvious that there most be room for implied consent.

The discussion about consent is particulary intense when it comes to the sexuality known as [[CasualKink BDSM]], since this sexuality touches both the first and the second type, and sometimes also the third. (BDSM stands for Bondage, Dominance-games and SadoMasochism. Started out as a combination of the old terms Bondage&Dicipline, Dominance&Submission and Sadism&Masochism.) However, the discussion is not in any way limited to that particular field: it also includes mainstream sexuality as well as all kinds of issues that has nothing to do with sexuality.

Also, some people really enjoy getting woken in the morning by their partner cuddling them. And yet, there are people who sincerely thinks that this can never be acceptable: Touching someone who is asleep is always abusive, accordingto these people - even if it's a couple who has been married for 20 years, and the sleeping person has previously said that he enjoys being woken up that way.

The problem with this is that some people consider others to have given implied consent even when no such implication was intended at all. The most infamous version of this is guys who believe that if a woman is wearing a short skirt (or if she's not wearing a veil) then she's implying that she want unknown men to stare at her, touch her or worse. This have given some people (mostly women) a certain allergy to the concept of implied consent.

One of the most popular ways of trying to deal with all these problems is...

[I'll continue this page later, saving now just so I don't lose it from a computer-crash or whatever.]

Click the edit button to start this new page.