… But not exclusively. There are some simple examples:
- You don’t want to fuck me, and tell me so. I fuck you anyway. This is clearly wrong.
- You own a car. I want the car. You don’t want me to have it. I take it. Is this wrong? Clearly yes, even though your car is a piece of shit.
- You want me to hurt you by burning you with wax. You tell me so, and I comply. Is this wrong? Clearly no.
- I restrain you and inject a harmful chemical into your body against your will. Is this wrong? I should hope so.
But there are cases where the verdict is not so clear, where consent is murky or the situation is otherwise unclear.
- You don’t want me to fuck you. You never tell me so, or resist. I fuck you anyway. Is this wrong? You didn’t ever say “I want you to fuck me,” but nor did you say “I don’t want you to fuck me.”
- You kinda want to fuck me, but you’re not sure. After a few drinks you get horny and start hitting on me. I fuck you. Is this wrong? Your ability to give consent was impaired.
- You want me to kill you, and I do. Is this wrong? You gave consent.
- You have a strong addiction to a harmful chemical. You want to buy some from me, and I comply. It could be argued that your ability to consent is impaired by your withdrawal symptoms.
So, consent is not the only factor. Or rather a specific definition of consent is needed. There’s nothing wrong with self-destructive behaviour if the behaver knows what he is doing and accepts whatever consequences there may be. If I am sober and sane, and want to cut off my pinkie finger with a cleaver nobody can tell me that’s morally wrong. It should then be okay to have someone else do it for you. If you are sober and sane, and want me to cut off your pinkie finger with a cleaver that’s alright too.
There’s all sorts of vagaries surrounding the concept of consent.
Where rape is concerned, if the alleged victim had the opportunity to protest, and didn’t, that’s consent. Mind you, “protest” covers all sorts of things, ranging from “don’t come any closer or I’ll fucking rip your nuts off” to “well, I don’t really know about this” to a whimper muffled by duct tape. Oh yeah, and if the alleged victim was never given a chance to protest there was no consent.
Some people are denied the right to consent. Minors. The mentally handicapped. Criminals. Oh yeah, and apparently POWs, but this isn’t a political post. These people have stuff done to them without consent which is considered okay, and stuff done with consent that is not okay. Personally, I would lump junkies in with this group for certain cases. If a non-addict, someone in full control of their faculties, asks me for some heroin and I sell it to them that is not wrong. If I offer it to them that’s not wrong, because they are able to reason out their answer. If I offer the same hit to a kid (for this discussion “kid” denotes anyone not old enough to independantly make fully rational decisions), that is wrong. If I offer the same hit to someone who’s been jonesing for smack for the past two days… well, I pretty much know they’re going to take it. Hence wrong, because there is no opportunity for consent (see “never given a chance to protest”, above).
So: this is what’s wrong with dealers of “hard” drugs. If you sell to a junkie you’re deliberately causing her harm. She does want whatever it is you’re selling, but her ability to decide is impaired.
More on this another time, maybe.
