Prompt: is consent the only standard form that matters in sexual contexts?
Some readings provided:
There are at least two related questions about sex and consent: (i) When has consent taken place? (ii) When is someone in a position to know whether or not consent has taken place?
This is obviously a very, very weighty set of questions. Consent is the difference between sex and rape.
If someone says “No – I don’t want to do that” or words to that effect” it looks like we’ve got an obvious case where someone has not consented to sex, and the person they’re talking to is unreasonable if they still believe the person has consented to sex. But what if someone doesn’t say “No”? Does that mean they have consented? Is the absence of “No” the presence of “Yes”?
It might help to think about how consent works in less controversial cases, and then come back to sex. Sometimes we consent to things without saying, out loud, “Yes, I want this to do this. Count me in.” This is because consent is something that happens first in the mind. It might or might not be communicated to others with words. The question of when consent exists and when it has been communicated, again, are two different questions.
But when consent is a measure of permission or of willingness to cooperate, there are other minds involved than the mind of the person who does or doesn’t consent. That’s why we have to ask, “When is someone else in a position to know whether or not you consent?”
In non-sexual contexts, consent can be signaled in all kinds of non-verbal ways. If I said, “Anybody want to play baseball?” and you leave the room and come back with a bat and a glove, it looks like I’m now in a position to know you’re down to play baseball with me, even if you didn’t say “Me. I want to play baseball” out loud. But notice that this is only because I asked. If I saw you walking down the street with a bat and a glove, I may be in a position to know that you want to, or have recently wanted to, play baseball with someone. Of course, I’m hardly in a position to know that you want to play baseball with me – obviously, I have no right to force you to, or to consider myself wronged if you won’t play baseball with me.
Or, suppose we’ve talked it over, and I’ve told you, “Whenever you see me wearing my Cincinnati Reds cap, you know I’m down to play baseball.” If we’ve had that conversation, it seems like you may well be in a position to know that I consent to play baseball with you even if I haven’t said so out loud, when I walk up to you wearing my Reds cap. Though, again, you can take the absence of “No” for a “Yes” in this example only because we had the conversation where I told you that wearing the cap means “I consent to playing baseball”. If we haven’t had that conversation, it would obviously be unreasonable for you to assume I want to play baseball with you just because I’m wearing the cap.
Now, it might be that even though I’m not wearing my Reds cap, and we haven’t had any conversations about how I’ll signal to you that I want to play baseball, and I didn’t leave the room and come back with a bat and glove when you asked “Anybody want to play baseball?” that still consent to playing baseball. It might be that I consent and haven’t told you. That’s totally possible, because my consent happens first of all in my head, and nobody’s in there but me. But the question of when consent has occurred is not the only question we’re asking: we’re also asking When is somebody else in a position to know that I’ve consented?And here’s the kicker: unless there’s been some background conversation when I said out loud “Yes” or “When I do XYZ, it means ‘Yes'” you shouldn’t take the absence of “No” for the presence of “Yes”. If you want to be in a position to know if I’ve consented, you need to ask for that consent, and leave me alone if I don’t give it.
Notice, too, that when force gets involved, even if I am wearing my Reds cap, and we had a convo where I said “If I’m wearing my Reds cap, I want to play baseball with you”, the standard is different. If you see me wearing my cap, and you want to play baseball, and I say, “I know what I said, but I actually don’t want to play baseball today” . . . well, I don’t think many folks think you now have a right to force me to play baseball.
Does the way we think about consent in these non-sexual contexts carry over to the way we should think about consent? Why not?
instructions:
1) The first thing you should do is identify your thesis. Your thesis is a one-sentence version of your answer to one of the questions above.
(2) The next thing you need to do is outline the argument for the thesis. State and number each of the premises. It should be perfectly clear and obvious what your argument is. It should be outlined in standard form like this:
Premise 1: If utilitarianism is true, we should oppress minorities if that’s what maximizes happiness.
Premise 2: You shouldn’t oppress minorities to maximize happiness.
Conclusion: Utilitarianism is false.
(3) Then, explain the logical relationship between your premises and the conclusion. Ask yourself, “Is it possible for someone to agree with my premises but disagree with my conclusion? If not, why not? If so, what premise can I add that would fill the logical gap or make the hidden assumption clear?” Would the truth of your premises guarantee that you conclusion is also true? If not, would the truth of your premises show that your conclusion is very likely to be true? (These questions are about whether your argument is a deductive or inductive argument.)
(4) Next, explain each of your premises in turn. Do your premises contain words or ideas that are not clear? Explain them. If your premises are controversial (i.e. If they’re not obvious to common sense), give an argument for them. Clearly identify the premises of that argument. Given that this is a short paper, you probably want to stick to premises that are as non-controversial as possible. Or, try to come up with an argument with only one really controversial premise, and concentrate your efforts there.
(5) Finally, present an objection to your thesis, OR an objection to one of your premises, OR an opposing position. The objection should come from an outside source: either from the assigned reading or from a source you find on your own. Explain why the objection poses a problem for your thesis/premises or why the opposing position is at least plausible. Then, give a brief defense of your thesis/premises OR briefly explain why we should prefer your position to the opposing position. Make sure that this defense adds something to your overall argument. Don’t “defend” your thesis or premises by just stating them over again.
This paper should be no less than 5 and no more than 6 pages long.
