One in three women and one in six men in the United States experience sexual violence in their lifetime. Yet there’s conflicting understanding of consent and what constitutes sexual assault or rape. To help advance the conversation around consent, Healthline has collaborated with NO MORE to create a Guide to Consent.
You haven’t actually responded to the idea. Is that risk acceptable to you? If so, why? Would you be ok with that risk if you were the physically smaller/less strong person in the interaction? Assuming you’re a straight man, would you be ok with a gay man using your approach to consent with you?
Now let's consider a metaphor of consent theory -- contract
When you sell or buy stuff, you can request a contract where the terms are going to be explicitly stated. Yet in ordinary life contract is used only in special circumstances when parties don’t know each other and stakes are relatively high.
Now imagine you’d have to make this contract every time you interact with your friends. They buy you food? Can’t accept it until the contract is signed. They give you a ride? can’t have before the contract. etc etc That’s very inconvenient, isn’t it?
Theoretically you can create all encompasing contract that will provision to do anything by anyone in accordance with law. So, what’s the value of such contract then? why do we have it in the first place if it doesn’t actually protects parties from abuse?
Contract metaphor
Have you been ever tricked into signing contract that’s not beneficial to you? I certainly have. More knowledgeable agents are always at the advantage in signing and creating contracts.
Example: Every day I agree to cookie agreement I didn’t read, so what’s the point of the contract that’s impractical to read and understand?
So, striving to protect the user, GDPR actually forced users to agree to random agreements they cannot be ever expected to read, let alone to understand.
And that’s just bits of data. Imagine you could become a sexual slave to someone just because you unknowingly consented?
For better or worse, in personal relationships people rely on vibes. There’s a reason for that: not everyone (in fact Idk who actually) has the capacity to solve moralistic riddles every time there’s communication ambiguity.
Theory of consent is assuming that morality can be objectified
Well, bad news, morality is not objective. So if you force your own moral vision as objective one, governing body actually not respecting consent of people.
Lastly, this theory is only an idea. There’s no real implementation structure as of now, there’s no clarity how it supposed to work and what will be the actual result. Once it progresses let’s talk about that particular implementation.
Now, fast and loose:
I am responsible for my own actions and ready to defend those actions according to state’s law
This person is also responsible for his own actions and legally we’re on similar grounds regardless of weight. In fact, usually physically smaller person has legal upper hand: he’s risking by years in prison while I am (the victim) risking by half an hour of humiliating experience. Yes, it could be traumatizing experience but it’s nowhere near as traumatizing as post-con life