Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.postmodern,sci.lang,alt.feminism,alt.fan.camille-paglia
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!news
From: jmkinnib@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Ghostboy)
Subject: Re: Lesbian feminists?  (was: same old)
Message-ID: <31ba8df0.1114963@news.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: cnts3p06.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <DrznpK.GC1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4ogl1a$t3k@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <hatunenDs6876.53F@netcom.com> <4oj2j5$nqv@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4ojivc$lf1@agate.berkeley.edu> <sprague.25-3105190214390001@ts24-9.homenet.ohio-state.edu> <4p98ra$isp@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> <31b8db38.246798056@news.uwaterloo.ca> <4pb6c3$lva@usenet7.interramp.com> <31b9edf9.8826298@news.uwaterloo.ca> <4pdfc6$aco@usenet10.interramp.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 08:59:05 GMT
Lines: 101
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:178685 sci.lang:55436

On 9 Jun 1996 03:11:02 GMT, us010739@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith)
annoyed the censors with:

<snip>
>>>With love, both consent.  With rape, one 
>>>doesn't.  With children, we do not consider them capable yet of real 
>>>consent (statutory rape, for example).  
>>
>>saying that someone is not capable of consent does not mean we cant
>>engage them in any way. 
>>We make children eat their vegetables and go to school, all without
>>the same consent.
>>We do this because we have decided that these are 'good' things for
>>the child, not because of any 'consent' issues.
>
>I disagree here -- the difference is that sex is only considered a good 
>thing if both parties freely consent and are capable of understanding 
>what such consent entails

that is a culturally based value judgement, in some cultures only the
husband must consent.
I'm not implying that this is a better system, but what is 'good' is
relative. Also most of the sex I experienced in my younger days
involved significant amounts of alcohol. This was true of both my
partner and myself. Legally, neither of us was able to give consent.

This is not to say that the sex was not very good and enjoyable for
both of us.

> -- the ramifications of their actions.  With 
>the examples you mention, they can be considered objectively good, 

obejctively?...based on your belief system.

>with 
>or without consent, while sex can vary from a good thing to a terrible 
>thing depending on this factor.  

there are other variables, sometimes for instance sex is just bad,
whether it has to do with timeing or the partners experience and
talent.

>This does not mean that there is a 
>judgment made about whether or not sex is good with the proper 
>prerequisites, but just that very few children are capable of such 
>prerequisites and could be easily taken advantage of.

and as such they are not capable of consent, but my point was simply
that consent is not the issue here, at least as far as the child is
concerned. The guardians of the child decide if the sex is good for
the child.

>
>>>With gay sex there is no one 
>>>involved who is not capable of real consent (leaving aside the whole 
>>>man/boy thing, of course)
>>
>>I think the point has to be made that 'not giving consent' and 'not
>>being able to give consent' are different.
>
>True, but for sex to be considered appropriate, it should be consented to 
>by both. If one can't give consent, it can't be.

I will cite my drunk example, some of that sex was very...
*sigh*...good.

>
>>> -- what possible business is it of anyone but 
>>>them?
>>>
>>You would support a persons right to mutilate themselves or commit
>>suicide then?
>
>If capable of consent -- adult and not judged mentally incapable -- sure.

ah, but some would say that anyone who would even consider such things
was some how mentally impaired. 
If I say homosexuality is a birth defect or genetic problem, you can
see where this would lead.

It think ...as a general rule... consent is an overworked idea.
We very rarely consent to things such as sex, its usually more subtle
and less conscious than that.
This also raises the question of when seduction becomes coersion.

Not an easy distinction to make.

>
>>Personally, I could care less what 'gays' do in there bedroom, that
>>was not my point.
>>Ghostboy --- A non-practicing Atheist
>
>Again, sorry for misunderstanding -- I answered too quickly.
>
>Stephanie
>
Understandable, given the subject matter.



Ghostboy --- A non-practicing Atheist
