Talk:Informed consent

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

OK, OK. This may be perverse but what about non-coercive sex of a dog on a woman? I remember having to protect a former girlfriend from the amorous advances of a large dog whilst out walking - she had just started her period. That probably gives informed consent on the dog's side. Now if my girlfriend hadn't been so sexually uptight (repressive Catholic upbringing) it could have been informed consent on both sides. (I may regret having written this.) Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:10, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

No comment, regrets appreciated. humanUser talk:Human 15:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
To address your not-so-hypothetical situation, the dog, so far as we know, is not "informed" of anything. Being informed requires being sentient, which the dog is clearly not. It is entirely at the mercy of its hormones. It possesses no conscious understanding of "risk" or "harm", as this implies that the dog is capable of "self-modeling", or projecting itself into hypothetical situations (which it can't). A dog can only understand things instinctually or through rote learning/repetition, and even then it doesn't "understand" anything in the conscious sense. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:28, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Hmm, the ramblings of someone who has never been owned by a dog. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:33, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Hand.jpg


--Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:04, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
You think dogs don't know when they might be at risk? OK maybe a different notion of risk to most of us with our modern knowledge of biology; but even humans have different perceptions of risk, otherwise people wouldn't do half the stupid things they do. Check out the Darwin awards for example - not many dogs there. And as for being governed by their hormones, do you deny that we aren't? Do you think Bill Clinton was acting rationally and considered all the risks when he was alone in an office with Monica Lewinsky? Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:32, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Bill Clinton could have refrained from doing so, if he wished. A dog cannot. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a pretty Cartesian position you got there, RA. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, Bill's hormones got the better of him. A dog will refrain if it sees a bigger or stronger rival approaching. Most people are either conditioned into behaviours or refrain from certain actions because they might get caught (or spotted by god). Your argument about us being much better than animals is reminiscent of something Andy would say. I would contend that we are a lot less rational than we like to believe, it's just that we can often verbalise a justification. Many powerful men have been undone because of the influence of their irrational side (avarice, lechery, etc.). You might like to read some of Scott Adam's writings on the Dilbert blog about free will, or the lack of it. Take that as a reading assignment as I'm off to bed, not through choice you understand, just the hormones kicking in. ;) Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:16, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
AK— Not being well-educated with regards to philosophy, could you explain how my position relates Cartesianism? (Yes, I skimmed the Wikipedia article. But it's a biography, and as such, it does a crappy job communicating his actual philosophy.) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Genghis— Let me rephrase that, and hopefully cut to the heart of what I've been trying (not very hard, admittedly) to get at. In order to give "informed consent", one needs to be able to (a) understand the abstract concept of informed consent and (b) communicate the understanding of that concept if so asked. A dog can do neither. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
OIC. So you mean, in funny words, what I'd simplify as "informed consent is pure woo". Oh, and your way to test informed consent made my day. I can't wait to use it on my dimauk. After all, in (your) theory it should work... 83.87.66.44 01:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight (see what I did there?) but I would like to say this: what a disturbingly difficult-to-resolve quandary. (And for what it's worth, I don't think anyone in the sciences disputes that some animals -- especially mammals -- have at least some basic reasoning ability.) EVDebs 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

In the current discussion the dog does not need to give informed consent, as it would be the perpetrator of the action. It is the woman who would need to consent. With a man-on-dog situation of course the situation is reversed. The man only needs to give consent if he is performing the act at someone elses behest. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 02:48, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, but legally that does not hold up. For instance, a "willing" 15 year old boy schtupping his 25 year old teacher is legally being raped (statutory, of course, which is usually called things like "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or some such). humanUser talk:Human 12:54, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
I was going to visit this scenario later. But what if the teacher was the unwilling partner? (Or if the dog mauled the woman rather engaging in intercourse.) Who is doing the raping then? There is a problem with statutory rape in that the age of consent varies from country to country. It may be illegal to have sex with someone who is 15 years and 364 days but the following day it is perfectly legal (assuming a 16 years old age of consent), the only significant difference being another cross on the calendar. The thresholds are purely arbitrary as people's emotional maturity differs despite them being physically capable. Nature doesn't impose any arbitrary boundaries, once a creature is sexually mature it either fucks or gets fucked. Now, there have been instances of European men visiting (mainly Asian) countries for "sex tourism" and then being prosecuted in their own country. What if the act was legal in the country they visited? Is that fair? Or conversely what if the act was illegal (i.e. the age of consent was higher) would they then be prosecuted in their home country despite them still engaging in sex tourism? People with an advanced physical age may well have a mental age of a young teenager but should society deny them the right to an active sex life? Driving licences in many US states are issued to 16 year olds but not before 17 in the UK (unless you are in the military) and many European countries. I could drink in the UK at 18 but not until 21 in the US. I am not advocating any particular position here but the whole process of legislating is fraught with difficulties. In most cases age limits are purely arbitrary. If I am old enough to get married and have kids (16 in the UK) why can't I vote until I'm 18? Despite the fact that I may be working and paying tax! It is situations like this that make the law seem an ass. With regards to the age of consent it is often a question of power (say) where an older man intimidates or pressures a younger woman, but may also be where a powerful man intimidates a subordinate. My argument, which I tried to propound with the dog-on-woman scenario, is that there really are very few black or white cases and that the notion of informed consent may be difficult to identify. Most are varying shades of grey and therefore should be judged on the individual circumstances. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Postscript. I guess it boils down to liberal, and maybe even libertatrian, moral relativism. That's why I oppose CP and it's black or white, right or wrong philopsophy. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 17:33, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's funny because in the jurisdiction in which I'm located if I took a picture of myself naked (I am 17 years of age) and sent it to someone I could go to jail for production and distribution of child pornography. It's nice to know you don't like the idea of me taking pictures of my naked body. Fascists >_< — Unsigned, by: 184.65.18.151 / talk / contribs