Explaining Consent to Idiots and Beginners

When I was writing my recent post, I had a feeling that I should have made a post that is specifically or ONLY about consent because of the fact that the vast majority of people who try to navigate this issue end up going off on a massive non-sequitur (something that has no logical connection to the argument and doesn't follow) when they try to argue for someone not being able to consent in certain contexts or dynamics. I have already been over this in the last post, but apparently, that was too long to read for a certain individual named Finnian, so he decided to go to the comment section of my last post and act like a complete retard, which is now muted because I don't want any idiocy on my posts. If anyone wants to see the full ''debate'' let me know and I'll post it.

This post is actually not for him since I don't think that he is mentally capable of comprehending basic logic. This post can be considered a ''beginners'' guide for being able to talk about this issue without looking like a complete idiot. If someone doesn't understand what consent is, and more specifically what the requirements are for ACTUAL consent, it's EXTREMELY likely that they will be talking about something that has no logical connection to consent and will end up talking out of their ass.

Actual consent is a mental process that only requires desire and the capacity to understand (intellectually) a particular activity once information about that specific activity (including its potential consequences) is given to an individual. There is also an obvious physical requirement. For example, if someone wants to engage in the game of basketball, they simply need a desire to participate and the mental capacity to comprehend information about that activity (and obviously the physical capacity to play as well). This is true of every single other activity, including sex.

I feel like I need a physical demonstration for this, but I will just have to explain it as simply as I can and hope people that see this are smarter than the aforementioned individual. Assuming that two 14-year-olds have the capacity (both mentally and physically) to consent to sex, they can legitimately and consensually engage with each other in that activity by having the desire to have sex since they will be sexually attracted to each other, and by consensually agreeing to the activity through simple communication or by saying yes (this can be implicit if they just jump on each other, start having sex, and neither ones pulls away or voices any unwillingness to engage).

A lot of people (probably voluntaryists or anarchists) wouldn't have a huge issue with the above situation taking place in reality. At the very most, they would worry about pregnancy or STD, which is an obvious practical issue but doesn't logically connect to a person's capacity to consent since people can obviously consent to things that have negative effects or consequences (holding the opposite position leads to absurdity in the form of not being able to say someone is responsible for murder or any other action that produces negative practical consequences, if someone can't consent or agree to what they are doing, they can't be held responsible).

Now, when we take out one of the fourteen-year-olds and add in an older person of any significantly higher age (this is where an arbitrary, non-sequitur line is drawn) such as 30, people have a mental breakdown and start making supernatural-like claims and then end up using logical fallacies like begging the question and special pleading. Obviously, the older person could coerce the younger one into having sex and COULD (key word) do It a lot easier than a person that is the same age as the younger one. However, this isn't a guarantee or even LIKELY to happen.

As I explained to the aforementioned retard, there is a huge difference between easiness and likelihood. Using the ''easiness' argument and logic and arguing for the banishment of those kinds of interactions, you can say that a parent could easily kill their newborn baby due to the fact that there is a MASSIVE strength or power differential between the two and that we can justify banning all of those interactions and all of the other interactions that involve children (ad reductio absurdum time). However, does that mean the person is LIKELY to do that? It's possible, but saying that it's likely or probable would require specific evidence that shows that the person has a history of doing that to children or even harming them (weaker inductive evidence). All of this applies to the previous context as well.

Now, there are some people who seem to think that the older person in the former context automatically negates the younger person's ability to consent just by being much older. This goes into the supernatural-like claim that I mentioned earlier. So, according to these people, even though there is not any coercive action or behavior directed at the younger person by the older person, the younger person can't consent to sex (only sex or a sexual relationship) just because of other person's age. The reason why this is a supernatural-like claim is because of the fact that the age or experience of the older person is ultimately the condition and history of a human body. In order for any type of action or behavior to occur, the human body must be put into action through the mind.

So yes, a more worn, used, and older human body can magically coerce a mind in a less worn, less used, and younger human body. I really hope anyone that reads this understands the pure delusion and detachment from reality that someone has to possess to think this way. Obviously, this nonsense is nothing but the delusions of morally dumbfounded clowns who have the emotional maturity of a 2-year-old.

In order for a younger person to be unable to consent in a dynamic like that, the younger one must not have the mental or physical capacity to consent as an individual (that means they can't consent to anyone) or the older person MUST PERFORM ACTUAL, PHYSICAL, AND COERCIVE ACTION OR BEHAVIOR AND THEN DIRECT IT TOWARDS THE YOUNGER ONE IN A WAY THAT NEGATES THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX WITH THE OLDER INDIVIDUAL (''Have sex with me or else I will hurt your family'' or by forcing themselves on the younger one while the younger one is expressing distress and unwillingness in some way).

No, it doesn't matter hold old the older person is, even if he is 90-years-old. That doesn't magically cause coercion upon the younger person nor does it cause mental negation of any kind in the younger person. By the way, Finnian, you fucking retard, putting the label ''position of authority'' on that dynamic or upon the older person doesn't change the reality of the situation in your favor. That is just you being retarded and asserting an abstraction or a phrase and pretending that it necessarily manipulates reality.

For anyone wondering, no, I don't think that every single interaction like that is automatically consensual or that it's somehow impossible for it to be coercive or non-consensual. I don't assume anything because of the fact that I really don't give a shit who fucks each other unless there is evidence of coercion or evidence that one of the people involved doesn't have the capacity to consent. If you want to make the claim that an interaction or activity between two people is non-consensual or harmful, provide evidence or shut your fucking mouth about it. Also, don't call yourself a fucking voluntaryist if you think it's okay to initiate force on innocent people that you FEEL are acting non-consensually, without having any strong evidence or strong logic for doing.