The Consent Argument Is No Argument

[Brickjectivity]

Its a good rule of thumb but should not be used as an explanation or argument. Its not an argument.

Sometimes people I respect claim that sex is wrong if both parties are not consenting with understanding, and I object that its not an argument. I can probably agree with that rule of thumb, but it isn't an argument. I also hear some say just that Consent is required. That's not a terrible rule of thumb either. The strengths of these are that they protect children animals and people who can't think clearly, but these claims lack the performative reason why. They don't discuss the human being or connect to our basic physiology and psychology. If we are arguing about ethics then it seems like they are an evasion of the subject. As a rule of thumb 'Consent with understanding' is workable, but it is not a reason and not an argument. I'll give an example of actual arguments which support the rule of thumb:

Here is an actual argument for why sex with children is wrong: Children have the gift of seeing life without the added confusion that sex imposes upon adults. Children also lack a strong sense of self. When the adult's aggression (through sex) is unleashed upon children, that adult undermines and betrays the gift children have and can also damage their personalities. Rather than caring for the children, the adult becomes a user of children.

Here is one for why sex with animals could be wrong: People and animals have germs, and sometimes those germs cross over during sex which leads to STD's.

Here is one real argument for why sex with people who don't understand is wrong: They are not your property. This depends of course upon understanding why people should not be property (chattel), but it is an argument.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Wow. In a bad way.

 

[Koldo]

Its a good rule of thumb but should not be used as an explanation or argument. Its not an argument.

Sometimes people I respect claim that sex is wrong if both parties are not consenting with understanding, and I object that its not an argument. I can probably agree with that rule of thumb, but it isn't an argument. I also hear some say just that Consent is required. That's not a terrible rule of thumb either. The strengths of these are that they protect children animals and people who can't think clearly, but these claims lack the performative reason why. They don't discuss the human being or connect to our basic physiology and psychology. If we are arguing about ethics then it seems like they are an evasion of the subject. As a rule of thumb 'Consent with understanding' is workable, but it is not a reason and not an argument. I'll give an example of actual arguments which support the rule of thumb:

I think you won't find a better argument...

Here is an actual argument for why sex with children is wrong: Children have the gift of seeing life without the added confusion that sex imposes upon adults. Children also lack a strong sense of self. When the adult's aggression (through sex) is unleashed upon children, that adult undermines and betrays the gift children have and can also damage their personalities. Rather than caring for the children, the adult becomes a user of children.

I remember having sexual urges back when I was around 8 or 9 years old. I also don't think for a moment that having sex back then would have damaged my personality. If anything it would have granted me a much needed confidence boost. It looks like your argument has absolutely nothing to do with a significant part of my childhood then...

Here is one for why sex with animals could be wrong: People and animals have germs, and sometimes those germs cross over during sex which leads to STD's.

The same goes for sex between people though.

Here is one real argument for why sex with people who don't understand is wrong: They are not your property. This depends of course upon understanding why people should not be property (chattel), but it is an argument.

You need to elaborate the relation between property and having sex with someone who doesn't understand.

 

[Yerda]

P1. Sex without consent is rape
P2. Children can't consent
C. Therefore sex with children is rape.

Is that not an argument?

 

[Brickjectivity]

P1. Sex without consent is rape
P2. Children can't consent
C. Therefore sex with children is rape.

Is that not an argument?

Sex without consent is rape by law. An argument explains why it is legally considered rape. The principle or the argument about principle is the reason for the law.

Rape hasn't always been illegal, and in places it still isn't. The reason creates the law. Without a reason the law is weakened and will be changed probably. Just as when our reasoning against slavery was weak the law was changed, and chattel slavery became legal.

 

[Yerda]

Sex without consent is rape by law. An argument explains why it is legally considered rape. The principle or the argument about principle is the reason for the law.

Rape hasn't always been illegal, and in places it still isn't. The reason creates the law. Without a reason the law is weakened and will be changed probably. Just as when our reasoning against slavery was weak the law was changed, and chattel slavery became legal.

It isn't clear to me what point your making here or in the OP. I might have misunderstood what you were getting at?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think you won't find a better argument...

If it were an argument then it could be compared to other arguments. Instead it is only a law, and as such it is a weak law no matter how strongly we feel about it.

I remember having sexual urges back when I was around 8 or 9 years old. I also don't think for a moment that having sex back then would have damaged my personality. If anything it would have granted me a much needed confidence boost. It looks like your argument has absolutely nothing to do with a significant part of my childhood then...

I remember having some sexual pleasure when I was 4, but its beside the point. Aggression is part of the human gene, and we suppress it in many ways for good reasons, not simply for no reason. Sexual aggression is a common property, and children have to be protected from it somehow. We do this first with reason and then with agreed upon rules based upon that reason. Without the reason, the rule is weak.

The same goes for sex between people though.

No, not really. Humans get our STD's from cross species interactions. I know of no exceptions to this. There could be exceptions, but if you look at the history of any STD shared by humans it has come from animals first. Ok, look the point is that there is a reason not to have sex with animals, and it isn't 'Consent'. Consent by itself is not a reason. Its only a rule.

You need to elaborate the relation between property and having sex with someone who doesn't understand.

Good point. I would need to, but the point is not this particular argument but that consent is not an argument at all. It is a rule only.

 

[VoidCat]

An adult having sex with children has been proven to be harmful both psychologically and physically. Lack of consent is one reason it's harmful.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Lack of consent is one reason it's harmful.

That is a good point. I don't disagree there. It could be put together with psychology to explain lack of consent (about sex) as harmful. There are case studies that might support that. Very good pointing it out to me.

There are many situations however where children do not have consent about other things, and we still do them. They are not in control of their lives. There is something about sex which is different, and there is a reason its illegal. Its not merely some royal decree or God's will. There is a problem with it, isn't there?

An article from the National Institutes of Health in the UK says "Child sexual abuse (CSA) is an important public health problem with long-standing neurobiological, developmental, and psychiatric abnormalities." and "The role of various neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine affected by CSA are discussed. Serotonin abnormalities have been reported in various studies among participants exposed to CSA. Structures such as the prefrontal cortex, superior temporal gyrus, corpus callosum, parietal lobes, hippocampus, and cerebellum all demonstrate volumetric and structural changes in response to the trauma of CSA." Child sexual abuse and the development of psychiatric disorders: a neurobiological trajectory of pathogenesis