tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post6201589887014468379..comments2023-11-22T04:10:49.266-05:00Comments on Dispatches from Zembla: The Problem of ConsentAlokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-37478931920239006122008-02-18T05:17:00.000-05:002008-02-18T05:17:00.000-05:00The perspective is skewed a bit, overlooking the f...The perspective is skewed a bit, overlooking the fact that law becomes relevant only in situations where consent is contested. Law cannot be expected to validate every sexual act. Consent by law is never absolute. It is specific for the dealing in question, therefore cannot be generalised for either situations or conditions. A 14 year old cant <I>legally</I> have a consensual sex with an adult but can have contraceptives from her Physician in confidence.<BR/>Further, a certain law may be based on morality of the land , but morality per se doesn’t have a bearing in a legal contest. Hence implicit threat to consent isn’t in itself equivalent to no consent. Hence the huge debate to <I>legalise</I> prostitution.Ubermenschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07929115834655344542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-71284765848609106142008-02-14T14:00:00.000-05:002008-02-14T14:00:00.000-05:00Here's an interesting legal analogy for you: An i...Here's an interesting legal analogy for you: An infant (defined in the law as a person under the age of 21, or 18 given the state) is not allowed to enter into a binding contract. They are allowed to rescind their agreement at will. That's why parents have to co-sign for cars and credit cards and such. The purpose of the law is to protect youngsters from fraud, etc. There are exceptions. There is also in law the age of consent for sexual relations, and it's defined differently in each state by the legislature.<BR/><BR/>If you try to base sexual consent on a contractual relation, then any consent or assent or saying 'yes' to a sexual proposition is invalid in a person under the age of 21! Because they can just as easily turn around and rescind. Perhaps that's why the various states have defined the legal age of consent down. (This actually tends to protect the sexually predatory older male.) So, what happens is you get into conflicting legal standards—which prevails, contract law or legislative standard? Who are you trying to protect?<BR/><BR/>http://wisdomofthewest.blogspsot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-78180055282405173552008-02-14T11:23:00.000-05:002008-02-14T11:23:00.000-05:00Yes it is primarily a legal issue. If love and tru...Yes it is primarily a legal issue. If love and trust already exist in a relationship, these things don't really matter but the problem is that these are no longer the necessary preconditions for a sexual relationship. In that case one has to be careful because you are treading murkier moral territories.Alokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-32668787064262882532008-02-14T03:19:00.000-05:002008-02-14T03:19:00.000-05:00Interesting! I remember someone once gave me a few...Interesting! I remember someone once gave me a few points on how 'rape' is defined in the Indian legal system and I was positively amused. He also told me what are the grounds for determining if a spouse is cheating on his/her wife/husband. It had pretty weird clauses like 'seeing alone in the company of a male/female', 'seen entering a room together' etc. I was mortified with the outlandish rules - do you suddenly stop seeing your male friends without a chaperon if you are married, or never plan to watch a movie/have a drink alone with them? <BR/>But I suppose law needs the parameters to objectively define any behavior. Including consentMadhurihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01323335479301675432noreply@blogger.com