I have been working on a "Essay" for several years I titled "Beyond Consent"Here I wanted to file,post related to the meaning of "Beyond Consent"
As all topic's on my site,...just because I post it does mean I follow it as a complete truth,-I have become a great skeptic of almost everything...that what human being says,,that is-,most everything someone passes on through speech,writing all forms of commucations are subject to Naïve-ness,pre-concieved notion,etc..yet worse of all Deceit
In the article below"The Limits of Consent/The Witherspoon Institute-TIMOTHY HSIAO....notice how it goes from this....1 to 2(where is consent aspect question in 2)?
1.Earlier this year, an article in New York Magazine featured a story involving an eighteen-year-old woman who plans to marry and have children with her father. When the interviewer asked her to respond to those who might question her relationship, she offered the following reply:
I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy. We are two adults who brought each other out of dark places ... When you are 18 you know what you want. You’re an adult under the law and you’re able to consent.
2. This is a question that has been conveniently ignored by contemporary liberals, especially when it comes to the same-sex marriage debate. While natural law critics of same-sex marriage have argued for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of marriage, advocates of same-sex marriage sidestep the metaphysical question and instead appeal to the question-begging language of equal rights. But as we have seen, the debate is not about equal rights, but about the nature of marriage.
My point here..this two scenario's....are very,very different..
If you read: TIMOTHY HSIAO's paper "A DEFENSE OF THE PERVERTED FACULTY ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL SEX"...you will find he states -"Those who engage in homosexual conduct bring their sexual faculties to bear on a member of the same sex. In doing so, they direct the function of sex – which ought to be directed toward the generation of new life – to an end that is intrinsically unﬁt for this direction. We may conclude, therefore, that homosexual activity is immoral. Individuals who engage in such acts fail to properly love each other;for the form of love that is appropriate for any given relationship will depend on the relation that the beloved stands to oneself. When one’s love does not match the reality of the beloved, his love is disordered. Romantic love, because it seeks to unite bodily with the beloved,, his love is disordered. Romantic love, because it seeks to unite bodily with the beloved, must as such be directed toward a member of the opposite sex."
John Stuart Mill’s famous harm principle. In a famous passage in On Liberty, Mill writes that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
A child,un-consenting adult are..others
So for myself..TIMOTHY HSIAO's ..is no longer valid as a Non-Bias opinion...it is simply his opinion based on his belief that same-sex relationships are immoral..now he has voiced his opinion,it would be difficult for him to change,- do- to his Ego,he may be very religious etc..which makes change even more difficult.....being Humble,is hard on the ego
Pausanias, in Plato's Symposium (181a-3, 183e, 184d), asserts that sexuality in itself is neither good nor bad. He recognizes, as a result, that there can be morally bad and morally good sexual activity, and proposes a corresponding distinction between what he calls "vulgar" eros and "heavenly" eros. A person who has vulgar eros is one who experiences promiscuous sexual desire, has a lust that can be satisfied by any partner, and selfishly seeks only for himself or herself the pleasures of sexual activity. By contrast, a person who has heavenly eros experiences a sexual desire that attaches to a particular person; he or she is as much interested in the other person's personality and well-being as he or she is concerned to have physical contact with and sexual satisfaction by means of the other person. A similar distinction between sexuality per se and eros is described by C. S. Lewis in his The Four Loves (chapter 5), and it is perhaps what Allan Bloom has in mind when he writes, "Animals have sex and human beings have eros, and no accurate science [or philosophy] is possible without making this distinction" (Love and Friendship, p. 19)....Question I ask myself..".a slippery slope here,,is is about just oneself? and any is scary/to point of insane
To be continued
excerpt from " Seven reasons Consent Apps a Terrible idea " ;
1. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Consent is an ongoing process of communication. Our boundaries and comfort levels can change throughout a relationship or encounter, and what we might have been down for a few hours or even few minutes ago can turn us off now. A lot of consent apps (like LegalFling) bill themselves as providing legal backup by recording the partners’ desires and intentions before sex, but saying yes to something at one point in time doesn’t mean you have to do it. And while some apps offer a “no” function, it’s an absurd idea that in a fraught sexual situation, the average person is actually going to pull a phone out, open the app, and record that in fact, they no longer want to suck dick.
2. Consent can be more complicated than a simple yes or no answer. Consent isn’t a simple yes and no; it’s a process with the aim of creating a relationship of respect for bodily autonomy. It can be as complicated as sex itself. By reducing sex to a contract (in some apps, literally) rather than a conversation, consent apps erase the ambiguity and nuance of human interaction and avoid the actual issues of power and communication which make sex so fraught, and so awesome.