CMV: Sexual consent is objective, deterministic, universalizable, and not retroactive.

The issue I'm taking is against the aspect of consent. She may be justified based on her subjective experience to feel she was in danger, but the man was not threatening her in anyway and she gave no indication to the man, so from an outside perspective (which includes the man) consent was clearly there. It's unfair and therefore wrong to say the man violated consent.

The way you are treating consent makes it so anyone can claim you violated their consent on any agreement based purely on their subjective experience whether or not there was any rational reason for you to know there was not consent. This logic does not fly in any court of law. You can't undo an agreement without giving evidence as to why. In the example, there is no evidence that they man forced her to do anything, other than her claim that she felt that way. While I agree that if she truly felt that way she was justified to feel threatened, it does not mean she can undo the consent that she already gave unless she can prove to the outside world that she was rationally justified in feeling threatened to the point where she had no choice in the matter. If not than you cannot ethically say the man violated* consent.

You clearly subscribe to a postmodern definition of consent, and me (and I guess the OP, but I don't agree with everything he posted, which I already made clear) and what I'm suggesting is that we stop describing the event as a consent violation as it wrongfully (I mean ethically wrong, not inaccurate) judges people as rapists and sexual offenders, so we need to be more clear with our language.

/r/changemyview Thread Parent