Like Button

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Consent

Every day it seems another adult is charged with molesting children. It is, perhaps, the most disgusting, despicable crime we can conceive. But what you must not ask is ... why? Why is it so wrong?

You see, our society has always believed that children (those under the age of 21 before and now more likely 18 ... sometimes less) should be protected from sexual relationships. We've had statutory rape laws on the books for a long time. The fact that the minor agreed to do it is irrelevant in these cases. They didn't "consent". Consent, you see, is the prime factor.

We all understand the term "consenting adults". That is sacrosanct. Essentially whatever "consenting adults" want to do is okay, even moral ... you know, as long as it's just between/among consenting adults. Consent is the issue. And children cannot give consent. The legal term is "informed consent". The idea is that to give consent you must fully understand the concepts and ramifications and minors just don't have all that is required to give that level of consent.

And that's where it has gone. Why is it wrong -- immoral -- to engage in sexual relations with minors? Because they can't give consent. I've even seen this argument offered to explain why it's wrong to engage in sexual relations with animals. Seriously! They can't give consent. That's why. Any moral person knows that consent defines morality.

Of course, today's society is moving away from the idea that minors can't give consent. There is no end of those who will argue, "Why is it wrong for a 21-year-old to engage in sexual relations with a 14-year-old if they both agree to it?" Consent, you see. And the age limits are dropping. There are even voices that argue that there should be no age limit. Consent is the only issue. Consent is the gold standard for sexual morality. Consent: to give assent or approval. That is, "I agree to do what is before me. It is what I want." Or, to put it another way, "what I want" is the final definition of morality. When we have arrived at "consent" as the definition of "moral" -- and I think we have in the arena of sexual morality -- there is very little reason to consider just about any sexual behavior between or among "consenting adults" as immoral. Gender? Irrelevant. Polyamory? Who cares? And the arguments for pedophilia and bestiality won't be far behind. When "what I feel like" becomes the definition of "what is good", there are very few limits to what we will do. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the aim of some.

2 comments:

Marshal Art said...

This mirrors the situation over "rights". It seems it's enough to merely want something for one to insist one has the right to have it. Morality, common sense, whether or not it's even a good idea matters not if someone insists on having their desires fulfilled. Because they have "the right"!

Danny Wright said...

And even the idea that "consent" is the basis is completely arbitrary. What amazes me is the extent to which this moves closer to things like genocide, should the majority decide that such a thing is OK.