Philosophy Now Forum

Just to clear some things up here:

As far as the law and its philosophy is concerned, there is no mathematical way to define "consent", nor is it reducible to any specific physical, verbal, nonverbal act, or lack there of.

(For example, a married man and woman consensually having "rough sex" or "bondage" in the privacy of their own home is perfectly legal, even if the same physical act, if done to a stranger who isn't consenting would be rape or sexual assault; as ultimately determined by a court of law and its definitions and standards, and whether or not they consider consent or lack thereof to have been legally established or denied).

Ultimately, this is determined or defined by a court of law; and of course anyone who has sex with someone "they don't know", especially if something such as alcohol is involved, is taking a much greater risk than if they have sex with someone they are in a trustworthy relationship or marriage with.

Sadly, this is yet another issue which it is popular to sensationalize in clickbait media and feed off of people's fears, immaturity, and paranoia.

My honest belief, at this point, is that those so paranoid about this would be better not getting married. For those more interested, I'd recommend reading actual legal or court cases, and the ways in which procedures, evidences, and so on and so forth are used to decide this in the real world, rather than giving attention to sensationalist, clickbait nonsense on the internet or social media.

Consent is what you would have chosen for yourself if you had sufficient information, not what you do choose for yourself in a momentary impulse or without knowing what to expect.

For example, it is not immoral to allow the mentally ill to have sex just because they cannot understand and consent in the normal sense. They are not asexual creatures and what is best for them is not to avoid sex altogether but for it to be treated carefully. Having a sexual relationship with someone with a low IQ is not automatically rape or harmful to anyone.

It is not immoral to shove someone out from in front of an oncoming vehicle they didn't see. It is valid to assume consent because an average reasonable person (nvm suicide for now, that's a different topic) would want to be physically assaulted in that way relative to the alternative.

These facts are known as an undercurrent in society, that's why we have guardians and good samaritan laws. They are not understood explicitly enough, unfortunately, or issues of consent would be much simpler.