this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2022
6 points (100.0% liked)

Men's Liberation

1817 readers
1 users here now

This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.

Rules

Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people

Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.


Be productive

Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.

Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Build upon the OP
  • Discuss concepts rather than semantics
  • No low effort comments
  • No personal attacks


Assume good faith

Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.


No bigotry

Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.


No brigading

Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.

Recommended Reading
Related Communities

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
6
Guide to Consent (www.healthline.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. Risk is inherent to human communication: risk of miscommunication, risk of someone dropping you midsentence, risk of violence if you unknowingly and deeply offended the opponent, etc
  2. When adding extra layer bureaucracy over human interaction we must ask ourselves "will it actually solve the problem?"

Now let's consider a metaphor of consent theory -- contract

When you sell or buy stuff, you can request a contract where the terms are going to be explicitly stated. Yet in ordinary life contract is used only in special circumstances when parties don't know each other and stakes are relatively high.

Now imagine you'd have to make this contract every time you interact with your friends. They buy you food? Can't accept it until the contract is signed. They give you a ride? can't have before the contract. etc etc That's very inconvenient, isn't it?

Theoretically you can create all encompasing contract that will provision to do anything by anyone in accordance with law. So, what's the value of such contract then? why do we have it in the first place if it doesn't actually protects parties from abuse?

  1. Malicious agents don't care about consent
    Contract metaphorHave you been ever tricked into signing contract that's not beneficial to you? I certainly have. More knowledgeable agents are always at the advantage in signing and creating contracts.

Example: Every day I agree to cookie agreement I didn't read, so what's the point of the contract that's impractical to read and understand?

So, striving to protect the user, GDPR actually forced users to agree to random agreements they cannot be ever expected to read, let alone to understand.

And that's just bits of data. Imagine you could become a sexual slave to someone just because you unknowingly consented? For better or worse, in personal relationships people rely on vibes. There's a reason for that: not everyone (in fact Idk who actually) has the capacity to solve moralistic riddles every time there's communication ambiguity.

  1. Theory of consent is assuming that morality can be objectified
    Well, bad news, morality is not objective. So if you force your own moral vision as objective one, governing body actually not respecting consent of people.

  2. Lastly, this theory is only an idea. There's no real implementation structure as of now, there's no clarity how it supposed to work and what will be the actual result. Once it progresses let's talk about that particular implementation.

Now, fast and loose:

Is that risk acceptable to you? If so, why?

I am responsible for my own actions and ready to defend those actions according to state's law

Would you be ok with that risk if you were the physically smaller/less strong person in the interaction? Assuming you’re a straight man, would you be ok with a gay man using your approach to consent with you?

This person is also responsible for his own actions and legally we're on similar grounds regardless of weight. In fact, usually physically smaller person has legal upper hand: he's risking by years in prison while I am (the victim) risking by half an hour of humiliating experience. Yes, it could be traumatizing experience but it's nowhere near as traumatizing as post-con life