Yes, we could say that consent is given if there is no apparent sign that harm would occur.

De facto that is how I reconcile in practical terms the unreality of consent and the existence of the social construct of consent.

But it leads to some rather imperfect outcomes in cases where consent, even by social construct standards, is not obtained, but harm is lacking. One of those is sex under the age of consent, of course, and not just pedophilia, but hebephilia and ephebophilia, and sex between peer teens, tweens and preteens. We would probably welcome that. But it doesn't stop there. At this point the negation of consent is as much or more about the social and legal concept than about the possibility of asking and answering, but this isn't always the case. For example, nepiophilia would qualify. Zoophilia would qualify. And for even more technically problematic cases, sex with the mentally retarded would qualify. And sex under substance intoxication would qualify -- an instance which has been particularly put under the spotlight and attacked recently as part of the rape culture.

But the opposite is also true. And it is this what gotenks sees and doesn't like.

If we uphold the standard of harm as the yardstick, over and above the standard of the social construct of consent, sure, we end up still condemning forcible rape, because it does produce harm. But we condemn other things too. We condemn infliction of harm and domestic violence whether or not the victim claims to have consented it or wanted it. I have no problem with that idea, but he does, as it would delegitimize the BDSM communities. I don't think that makes me hypocritical: all through I have made the case for a society with a short fuze for infliction of harm upon another; with the endgame goal of minimizing (eradication is impossible) violence in society. To me, "consensual" violence undermines this effort and cheapens the fight against the perpetrating of violence in general. It matters little how sexualized the violence is: if an ISIS decapitator was jerking off while executing prisoners, it wouldn't make it right; if said decapitator was born inclined to being sexually attracted to harming people, it still wouldn't make it his right. And yes, I also see how this makes our own pedophile position have to defend on a reduced space. But no, your feelings are only yours, but the exercize of your sexuality, inasmuch as it involves another, is not.






Cuteness is to die for
Cuteness cannot fail
Cuteness knows no limit
Cuteness will prevail