Is consent is an overused focus?

[Hooked on phobics]

First, let me say, before some autist rages at me, I'm NOT saying consent is not important. It is. I mean precisely as the title says, its focus is perhaps too much.

Why I say this? First, you've probably seen freaks that worry about consent to a freakish level, like consent of a baby to be recorded by a nanny cam for security, or asking for consent to touch before a haircut. Some things consent is just fucking assumed, or just NOT important, if I get arrested, my consent to movement and stuff goes out the window. Duh.

But the bigger thing, I think the focus on consent could be low key helping pedos and animal fuckers. Why?
Well with a historical look, let me list some things. Interracial sex, homosexuality, transsexual.... All these were ONCE "they can't consent to it", more or less, if perhaps spoken more eloquently and precise in the past, usually in the form of "you have to be absolutely insane to do that, and insane people cannot consent". But still basically "they can't consent" even if the ones in question insisted they were.

Which seems fine, but also, all of those things CHANGED. Homosexuality used to get the exact same deal where a young man doing it wasn't seen as someone willfully doing it, but one who was sick, and not in control of his actions, but this shifted. Now its "CONSENTING ADULTS". But before that it was "stuff between a man and a woman" and in some places "between husband and wife". Basically the overton window has shifted, and even trannies has shifted from "this person is clearly off their rocker" to "well, its their CHOICE, they CONSENT to it".

my concern is that in normie levels, consent has become the END ALL BE ALL at the expense of so much, that all it takes is people to be destigmatized / pushed to accept these things to where people feel taboo is removed enough for someone to say "WELL, they agreed to it in THIS context, so its ok!" as has been done with gays, trannies, ect. Which will start people believing it more. We already see this shit happening in infancy stages openly with "MAP" pride flags, and people trying "map rights" and the like. Its overwhelmingly fought against, but its NOT run off most social media AFAIK, so its kinda like how homosexuality was in the late 80s and 90s? known, around, despised, but no longer as heavily fought against. And particularly with the eroding concept of "sane" ideas, thats even scarier. Because people don't GET it as much, why xyz shouldn't be done even with "consent", hell, people support SRS which is a horrific monstrosity people seem to be desensitized conceptually about, because they "consent" to it. So I really wonder if people would accept any vile act if "consent" was given. Like what, can someone "consent" to being cut apart with a chainsaw?! sounds insane, but I wonder if people would really find that ok if "consent" was argued enough. That if consent could SOMEHOW be manufactured or manipulated or brainwashed (or just lied about) in for ANYTHING, that ANYTHING would be considered "ok".

I realize kiwis are different than normies, and OBVIOUSLY mass majority are against pedos and dog fucking, but what do you think?
Do you think the heavy focus on consent in culture is part of this?

I know some people might want to just feed me hopium about how it will "never happen" but I never assumed trannies would get traction too. I'm considering the ideological aspects, and looking at examples of the past, and considering what would be the best bullwark against normalizing that kind of crap. Because I think going on explicitly about the harms of that crap is a million times better than "can't consent" argument which the "maps" already reject. Then again I guess faggots ALSO argued against that too, but perhaps less effectively.

AND YES, I realize consent is viewed as invalid BECAUSE those very harms and concerns, but I'm considering how a low IQ / degenerate faggots like dansburst studios would go about it, hearing "can't consent" and thinking "BUT ACKSHUALLY, THEY TOTALLY CAN SAY YES". This is less about functional people and more trying to prevent autistic fucks getting it twisted. I think you could also argue violating dansburst consent to put him into an asylum would probably be best too, as another example where "consent" is valued too much.

maybe I'm wrong, but I just worry degenerates will weaponize "consent" more in the future, and that its a favorable environment for THEM to argue.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

Libertines hate the concept of morality but still recognize the existence of evil. Consent is their half-baked work-around.

If you think "consenting" homosexuals spreading monkeypox to each other is less morally destructive than a teenager choosing to work a part-time job in a non-socialist economy, then you are beyond saving.

 

[RybenZ999]

Dude if you wanna make a thread about fudge packers, you could've used a different thread title.

 

[Toji Suzuhara]

Yes, the fact that that faggot german cannibal wasn't shot dead on the spot because his victim "consented to it" is proof enough of that

 

[mindlessobserver]

Focusing so hard on the Hard line of 18 +- 1 day always leads to sperging. Consent is certainly a factor, but it in and of itself is entirely a product of the law and society. Hard core Islamist societies would say that Adult Women can't consent at all as they are inferior, which manifests in their husbands being totally in charge of their lives. The opposite reflection of this in the West being that a woman can't consent to sex if she is "impaired" and whether or not the man was impaired too is ignored. And then what happens if the parent of a kid "Consents" for their child to be used in a porno? This isn't acceptable either, but is again a consequence of law and society, not of Consent as an abstract concept that stands alone.

 

[YautjaWeeb]

At the other end there are women who post naked or impressively disgusting sex acts of themselves online for attention and commentary but then go completely insane that someone "who they did not give consent to" made a certain comment about their body or what is depicted. Not even insults we are talking here but stylized encouragement.

This diverges from say, being raped. But not in the mind of the white middle class zoomer-to-millenial set where sexual assault is a philosophical and pliable construct with no onus of tangibility or personal responsibility. This commentary itself is now a rape.

 

[RybenZ999]

Addressing your point, normies only believe in the "consenting adults" stuff when it comes to homos and troons. How many normies do you know who support bigamy? Or incest? Prolly not many, inspite of the consenting adults argument applying to both of them

 

[Hooked on phobics]

Or incest? Prolly not many, inspite of the consenting adults argument applying to both of them

You'd be surprised.

 

[Divine right to rule]

I said the same multiple times, and I think it is intended.

If only consent matters, you can easily justify legalizing incest between adults, pedophilia and even zoophilia.

 

[cigint]

Addressing your point, normies only believe in the "consenting adults" stuff when it comes to homos and troons

But they didn't originally. It took a lot of programming for homosexuality to become accepted via the "consent" -trojan horse. Trannies were the next development, and it has only recently kind of succeeded. They're already working on pedos being the next step.

 

[Pomniman]

The real problem is retarded tumblr faggots/fag hags made it into academia and later HR departments of various corporations over the past couple of decades and got their social media-induced downs syndrome codified into something society pretends to accept.

 

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

Yes, consent should be seen as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the sexual union to be licit. The couple must also be male and female, married, and not actively precluding the possibility of procreation. Neither party should be exploiting the other party, which is more curly to define.

Unfortunately, homosexual secularists deny most of the above points. The secular definition of licit sex must then be reduced to merely consent. Then to protect against pedophilia some cockamamie theory on consent must also be contrived. It’s just silly. Child sex is tautologically wrong, it is not contingent on the child’s inability to give valid consent.

The excessive focus on explicit verbal consent is also a weird byproduct. At the end of the day we all know what’s up. If a man takes forces himself on a woman they both know it’s happening. Nobody was doing it by accident. Maybe a paradigm of explicit verbal consent might make women feel empowered to push back, or simplify rape convictions, but I’m not convinced that this actually exists in norma people’s bedrooms.

 

[Quall of Duty]

The concept of consent as it's being thrown around now is not "I'm willing", or "I agree", but "I accept". Whether it's a person, tranny, or corporation, whoever is explicitly looking for your "consent" wants to hold you hostage and violate you while signing away wrongdoing in legal or moral bounds. Consent peddlers get to be consent litigators when they have consent accidents.

Hopefully the focus on consent becomes it's own taboo by being associated with the type to seek it out. Autistic sex pests and sociopaths can be left behind selling "consent" to each other while being faceblind to basic implicit mutuality.

If someone asks for your consent, saying no means you are participating in their contract. Start yelling rape.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Not as retarded OP as I thought. Yeah consent is an easy way to push degeneracy and it amounts to "it doesn't hurt anybody". Children don't need to consent to be shown gay porn in schools, but people need a consent to say the N word. It's basically ridiculous rules that are pushed so hard we take it for granted.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

I look at the results. The use of “consent” as a principle has been used to justify and normalize a great many horrible things, all simply because two adults agree.

I’m sorry but you need more than that in some cases when you attempt to reinvent the sociological wheel.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

I’m sorry but you need more than that in some cases when you attempt to reinvent the sociological wheel.

Its less to convince me, and more to start a dialog. Its been mentioned by a few people in a few threads here and there, but nobody has REALLY talked about consent as a wider topic in an actual THREAD dedicated to it. I admittedly was a little nervous posting this because I figured a few people would see consent being questioned in ANY capacity and go feral, but fortunately the farm seems to be better than that. Doubt I could do this OP elsewhere though.

But yeah, MAID in canada is another really good example, especially as far as consent being kinda floppily defined. The whole premise is supposed to be consent = ok, but this almost coerces people into it, like someone else said, if you supposedly sign the contract, you are fucked after. And maid in particular will pressure you.
Reminds me of this parody thing on youtube that went on around a year ago.

it got so badly slammed off youtube, but it was actually a trailer for a movie satirizing such awful stuff, so I hear? But it still basically follows the "rules" of "consent" . Despite being repulsive, and messed up.

 

[souschef]

If only consent matters, you can easily justify legalizing incest between adults, pedophilia and even zoophilia.

I live in a country where the age of sexual consent is 14. Needless to say that has disastrous consequences to our society. It's that thing that i always say: it's not just because you can do something that you should do it. Lots of disfunctional families came to be this way

 

[オプセック]

Libertines hate the concept of morality but still recognize the existence of evil. Consent is their half-baked work-around.

If you think "consenting" homosexuals spreading monkeypox to each other is less morally destructive than a teenager choosing to work a part-time job in a non-socialist economy, then you are beyond saving.

Not sure if red pilled communist or seething libtard - but I think you are cave-beast pilled, so I take it as based where ever you are o the spectrum .

Yes, the fact that that faggot german cannibal wasn't shot dead on the spot because his victim "consented to it" is proof enough of that

Yeah, it's crazy how how school bullies why-you-are-hitting-yourself the retard weren't what broke libtards, but instead it took DOCTORS cutting 16 year olds dicks off because they threw like girls and wanted it...

 

[Rekieta’s Broken Penis]

Its less to convince me, and more to start a dialog. Its been mentioned by a few people in a few threads here and there, but nobody has REALLY talked about consent as a wider topic in an actual THREAD dedicated to it

I don’t think he was suggesting you’re looking for reassurance, if that’s what you meant by “its [sic] less to convince me”. I believe he was suggesting that certain people within modern societies have attempted to reinvent social mores/norms/mortality (i.e. reinvent the sociological wheel). When doing this without an overtly religious basis they often ground themselves in consent (this is pretty easy, because you’re basically just listening to whoever bitches at you). He’s said that in some cases you need more than just consent to inform you about whether something is right or wrong.

Idk maybe I’m wrong and he’ll clarify.

 

[オプセック]

I don’t think he was suggesting you’re looking for reassurance, if that’s what you meant by “its [sic] less to convince me”. I believe he was suggesting that certain people within modern societies have attempted to reinvent social mores/norms/mortality (i.e. reinvent the sociological wheel). When doing this without an overtly religious basis they often ground themselves in consent (this is pretty easy, because you’re basically just listening to whoever bitches at you). He’s said that in some cases you need more than just consent to inform you about whether something is right or wrong.

Idk maybe I’m wrong and he’ll clarify.

That's the thing, large groups consenting has merit, atomized stuff doesn't. People will cut a 16 year old's breasts off and tell you it's ok, because she consented to it, but everybody sees that some psycho freak mutilated a confused teenager, but you can't do anything, because of "muh consent" over objectively harming someone.
We made psychopath "logic" into actual law: "Oh, they had it coming, the garage wasn't locked!" There's a point where uttering "Yes!" is just meaningless monkey noise, because like with an unlocked garage, everyone is supposed to understand that a teen asking for body parts to be chopped off needs to be talked out of that, like you don't just take your neighbors shit without asking first, no matter how much of a push over he is and how inviting his open garage looks. And the most crazy thing: We still - sometimes - forcefully stop people from cutting themselves open. But it's ok if you and some doctors consented to it. - huh? what? come again? Op meant this.

Conceptually, this never was the gotcha many of us once thought it was...

There's another crazy one for this thread:
I think rape by deception is bullshit as long as no one was harmed.