Le consent

I'm using voluntarily signing as an example, not saying that all military service is voluntary. You pointing out that conscription exists literally adds nothing to a discussion on historical and philosophical precedent for consent.

Also is correct

Any contract needs consent.

I have two counter points:
1. You don't necessarily consent to entering the military, you could be forced to under pain of death.
2. That's irrelevant, because when you recieve the order you aren't asked for "consent". In that scenario, you've already "consented", way back when you joined the army, essentially you mean that the soldier has consented to giving up his right to consent.

Look at this. "Age of consent" at the very least is a spook. And ameriblabs insult Muhammad because he slept with a 9 year old,

Age of consent laws are necessary today because the law does not respect the role of the father in the family any longer. It's complicated, but essentially the law has invaded the realm of the family, traditionally it would be up to the father to decide when his daughter can marry but today she's supposed to be "strong and independant" and decide for herself.

Consent is kind of a meme. Let's say I tell you to either give me your wallet or die and you give me the wallet, technically you did consent and it was a voluntary choice. The point is choices don't really exist in a vacuum.

>The point is choices don't really exist in a vacuum.

That's a very good way to put it in few words.

age of consent laws imply she can't decide for herself tho

Yes, until she reaches the age of consent. It implies that a woman can't give "consent" until an arbitrary amount of time has passed. Which is of course strange in every way, but like i said, necessary if we are to discard traditional norms of marriage and family structure.

>essentially you mean that the soldier has consented to giving up his right to consent.
Kek, exactly? I mean, that's literally what's in the contract they sign when they "sign up" for military service, holy shit senpai, are you retarded?

>1. You don't necessarily consent to entering the military, you could be forced to under pain of death.
And if pigs had wings they could fly, so what? you aren't making any relevant points, you are scrambling for anything to say to remain relevant instead of simply not posting anymore.

It's more like a mutual umderstanding of not wanting to get fucked against your will. If you want to fuck someone in the ass, but they don't want you too, you could still do it. But then again you'd hate it to get fucked in the ass too, so it might not be a nice thing to do.

I'd add to this that there's also the effect of substances and circumstances on the mind that causes it to decide upon things that it would not under normal (i.e. cumulatively average) circumstances.

Also, nobody consents to existence, and so everyone is condemned to death and suffering against their own will. Other matters of consent are trifles compared to the fundamental matter.

I mean that the soldier does not give his consent to orders given to him.
Your last sentence seems irrational, a lot of soldiers have been forced to fight through-out history. So i am making a relevant point, that point being that a soldier doesn't necessarily have to give consent in order to be in the military.

>Which is of course strange in every way
There is nothing strange about it. Much of contract law stipulates that you can't enter various contracts until you reach a certain age.

And those laws aren't strange?

>ywn live in the 19th century and have a qt submissive ten-year-old waifu to fuck every night

>Your last sentence seems irrational, a lot of soldiers have been forced to fight through-out history.
You have literally no fucking clue what you are saying senpai. The people who actually do not want to fight, run.

>that point being that a soldier doesn't necessarily have to give consent in order to be in the military.
Give me modern examples without using third world shitholes were rape and consent are a literal joke? You simply cannot. I mean, we could go around in circles and circles about soliders forced to fight but you understand they are a very small minority of the army, if your military is made up of individuals who are forces to fight, your war will fail. Again, so what?

>I mean that the soldier does not give his consent to orders given to him.
Literally fucking what? That's the whole point of the military.

I have actually no fucking clue what you are saying.

Why would they be?

>Conscription also still exists in many nations, Korea for example forces it's youth into military service, only to be dodged by certain individuals.

The Greeks will conscript you even if you weren't born in Greece and aren't a Greek citizen.

If you are of Greek heritage (regardless of nationality) and spend more than X months per year in Greece, they can round you up and draft you into the army.

>In that scenario, you've already "consented", way back when you joined the army, essentially you mean that the soldier has consented to giving up his right to consent.

It's the same thing when you sign an employment contract. It's a (theoretically) 'fair' exchange where you do work for wages or whatever. Your relationship with your employer is balanced in that you take direction ('orders') but their enterprise can't be realised without your labour contribution.

Contract societies are the basis of classical liberalism, which developed at the end of the 18th century based on Enlightenment philosophy. As such, it generally forms the backbone of Western societies where conscription is an exception rather than a rule. But obviously, as conscription alludes, contracts between two equal and rational parties doesn't occur in a vacuum.

I think it was in the 60s and 70s the West really started to uncover ways in which social obligation, fame, status, class, gender, race, etc. all make navigating a contract society as a rational agent all the more complicated, with the development of linguistics, anthropology, psychoanalysis, feminist theory, civil rights. I think it is important not to rely on 'tradition' i.e. 'we didn't have to argue about consent in the past' because really these debates are unresolved and have their place in the now.

So it may seem like 'le consent' is a meme made up by feminists to have power but it's really a fundamental aspect of our own societies that we have to reconcile with 'human nature' as it were.

I think it's more to do with the rite of passage of graduating from high school into adulthood. At that point all people are supposed to be equal, having undergone the same education and are thus as rational and able to make decisions for themselves as everyone else. In theory, anyway.

The entire concept of personal liberty, ya fuckin goof

Yeah, but there's really minimal risk of the average man being subjected to unwanted sex.

Well, can you explain those contract laws a bit, and justify them? Seems entirely pointless to me, who doesn't know about contract law. So i mean it seems strange to me that you need to reach a certain age for a certain law to apply to you, it seems redundant and arbitrary.

Finland has mandatory military service.

I mean that when you recieve an order in the military, you are expected to obey. You are not expected to give your "consent" to the order. Let's take an example, you are a private, and your sergeant tells you to go stand guard near the road for 2 hours. Now, you don't have a choice, and you can't give "consent". You either obey the sergeants orders or you will be charged for disobeying a superior. In a hierarchy such as the military, there is a strict ladder of power, and the concept of "consent" is not present.

That's a fallacy though (argumentum ad baculum), and contracts/consent are supposed to be based on logic and reason.

For example you can't coerce someone into signing a contract without the contract being invalidated, or threaten someone into sleeping with you without it being construed legally as rape.

>You are not expected to give your "consent" to the order.
Are you totally fucking unaware of the fact that when you join the military you sign a contract giving up your right for consent.

You are going around in a fucking circle, I understand the basic premise of the grammar you re using, the logical implications are what you are confusing me with, it makes literally no sense.

>That's a fallacy

Let's say i point a gun at your head and tell you: "Tell me that you consent to having sex with me or i pull the trigger". You do so, and then i have sex with you. Was that rape? Let's compare it with another hypothetical scenario: There's no threat involved, i just ask you if you would like to have sex with me, you say "Yes", and we have sex. Shouldn't those scenarios be the same before the law, since in both cases you gave your "consent"?

I already answered this in the post you're responding to.

Alright, excuse me, it just seemed like an injustice to me.

>I think it is important not to rely on 'tradition' i.e. 'we didn't have to argue about consent in the past' because really these debates are unresolved and have their place in the now.
That really activated my almonds...

Consent through duress/coercion does not count as true consent.

or rather it's not the type of consent that the law intends

I wonder if there is truely such a thing as consent free from all duress, coercion, threats of violence and death, etc. I mean, like another user said, choices don't exist in a vacuum. There's always factors involved. As an example, a guy may offer me to work for him for an abysmal wage and in dangerous conditions, but if i don't take his offer i'll starve to death. So then you could say there was coercion.

except laws are social rules that intend to stop certain social behavior. I think we'd all agree that we don't want to live in a society where we have to face coercion from other people

>Well, can you explain those contract laws a bit, and justify them?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_(law)

>'we didn't have to argue about consent in the past'
People argued about contracts and consent in the past it just took on different forms. Debt is possibly one of the oldest forms of contract among civilizations.

Except duress and coercion is pretty arbitrary.

>I will kill you if you don't have sex with me
>I won't buy you a new car if you don't have sex with me

Those two situations are pretty much identical, you let the guy fuck you in exchange for something (your life/new car). They're different only if you believe in NAP nonsense.

This is true. Generally, from a jurisprudential point of view, the idea is that duress/coercion must render the will of the consentee overborne.

So generally, it takes quite serious coercion/duress of even trickely to render a persons consent invalid under law.

thanks for the link.

See
Yes, it is arbitary but there are tests involed and the degree of coercion is important.

It really exposes the 'spookiness' of Enlightenment thought. From my understanding, Locke, for example, thought of everyone as a blank slate, which is essentially how we have come to view everyone as equal. The argument is that through
'experience' (gathering sense-data) we form knowledge, and that a rational upbringing will result in a rational individual who can then go on into a society full of other rational individuals and make equal exchanges and contracts there. The left has been trying to refine this so that we are fair on populations traditionally oppressed and not allowed to participate in this rationalising process, by looking at the way institutions, language, media create our identities and interfere with the rational gathering of sense-data. In a perfect world maybe Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers are right, since a lot of their discoveries have helped us otherwise. But like I said earlier, we're in a process of reconciliation with this idealism and concrete reality.

>People argued about contracts and consent in the past

True, I meant sexual consent.

I'm becoming very skeptical towards Enlightenment thought...

Welcome to postmodernism.

>I think we'd all agree that we don't want to live in a society where we have to face coercion from other people
Maybe it is inevitable. To put it bluntly, maybe you'd like to live in a society where you don't have to face gravity, but it's just a part of reality.

You could also say that, in order for a person out of school to come into contact with people in school, they would have to either go out of their way to do so, or be some type of authority figure. In either case, a relationship would be a problem.

But that only applies if you view kids as having no life outside of school. Unfortunately, that's the direction society has taken. Age of consent makes sense within the context of the system, but the system itself is shitty.

Any era before the 19th century to be exact.

Consent is real, insofar as it represents one of the simple facts of social interaction - there's only so far you can push someone to do something they don't want, before they just refuse. Even if you're an absolutist ruler who can, in theory, make everyone do what they say, there's a certain point where people will just refuse, and revolt against you. Even if they're outnumbered and outgunned, there are still people who have chosen to die fighting back rather than submit to the authorities.

Consent as a LEGAL concept is, like ALL legal concepts, a spook. But it is chosen because it closely aligns with one of the fundamental social principles. Without consent, it's hard to really have any sort of laws, and at that point it basically just becomes might makes right.

>Bob has sex with Alice without her consent
>Alice cuts off Bob's dick without her consent
seems fair to me desu

*Bob's dick without his consent

Didn't some socialists in the Spanish Civil War have a type of doctrine like this in place?

>assuming bob's gender without his consent

Conscripted solders are morally justified in not following orders

>Bob is a chick with a dick
wat a tweest

In a truly just and civilized society this would be common law.

Conscription will never work in modern countries because conscripts will just kill their officers.

>philosophical/historical justification

Justification is a spook

Yes true, and the complications of intimate relationships interfere with child development, especially considering a child in this situation cannot relate to others in the same way -- too childlike for adults, too adultlike for children.

In what situation?

Intimate relationships with adults

That's just a problem with society.