Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I am starting this thread to encourage a conversation about the meaning of consent.
Below is an excerpt from an editorial by Will Tippens. The full editorial is available at Strike the Root published 4/20.
Have at it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it mean to "consent" to something? Thanks to the increasing, if often misplaced concern over sexual assault and rape, this important question is being posed now more than ever. One recent article went viral by aptly comparing sexual consent to offering someone a "cup of tea." According to this analogy, consent is as simple as offering someone a cup of tea; if they accept, they will drink the tea. If they decline or lose capacity to consent (lose consciousness), the tea party host cannot pour it down their throat. A simple yet effective analogy.
However, the topic of consent is an extremely important legal concept, as it is not only the key element in differenting between sex and rape, but the difference between all aggression and voluntary agreements. Without the concept of 'consent,' we cannot determine if someone is going on a date or being kidnapped, loaning $20 to a friend or having it stolen, or fighting in a boxing match or being assaulted by Mike Tyson.
But the elephant in the room that no one seems to mention is that this simple yet effective definition of consent raises a far more deeply reaching question: Is our relationship with government consensual?
Below is an excerpt from an editorial by Will Tippens. The full editorial is available at Strike the Root published 4/20.
Have at it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it mean to "consent" to something? Thanks to the increasing, if often misplaced concern over sexual assault and rape, this important question is being posed now more than ever. One recent article went viral by aptly comparing sexual consent to offering someone a "cup of tea." According to this analogy, consent is as simple as offering someone a cup of tea; if they accept, they will drink the tea. If they decline or lose capacity to consent (lose consciousness), the tea party host cannot pour it down their throat. A simple yet effective analogy.
However, the topic of consent is an extremely important legal concept, as it is not only the key element in differenting between sex and rape, but the difference between all aggression and voluntary agreements. Without the concept of 'consent,' we cannot determine if someone is going on a date or being kidnapped, loaning $20 to a friend or having it stolen, or fighting in a boxing match or being assaulted by Mike Tyson.
But the elephant in the room that no one seems to mention is that this simple yet effective definition of consent raises a far more deeply reaching question: Is our relationship with government consensual?
