Consent means the same as submit.

This "molarizes" the actors as an active and a passive, consent is master-slave, unethical; but the reality is that each agent is permanently active (and permanently determined).*


For someone who takes consent as given, relations outside that assumption are off-limits. Those relations that are off limits by the law of consent, are also off-limits by the law of the gun: Once you give your word or shake on it or sign it, then you are, behaviorally, the finalized object of the money lender, or the capitalist. The bank owns you, your manager, or label owns you.

You can't change your mind with bankers or businessmen, and their solicitors and politicians will also tell you that 'your word is your word'. Once you're in the gang, you can't just leave. 'Just forgive all debt and contracts!?'

All this debt and contract goes back to the invention of the game of money; the rules of which were 'fair': 'I'll give to you, and you owe me a penny's-worth.

The right thing to do would have been to help the needy fellow, and not ask anything for it. Note: This is why socialism seems to justify 'charity 'sex'. But instead, there was a demand to be paid back; thus money, banks ... and "rape of a child" law were all born.

It would be ethical that if consent is withdrawn during sex, that one not hold that person to their earlier word, right?

Laws against child-love are basically justifying rape: This is the intention, but it isn't just sex that the capitalist elite take by force against people's will and by ruse against people's better judgment, but also labor, money, status, grains, oil, cassiterite....


Consent is unethical, because it justifies a regime of exploitation. And also because philosophically it is unreal. Unreal?

The whole game of money started on the basis of a lie, "an unreal illusion" that anything were owed.* The one in need was not under any real obligation to pay back. Money is a mind-game. As is law, property, agents, consent, debt and so on. As an idea, it perpetuated itself by the principal of the syphon, the debtor can't be allowed to forget, going so far as to even actualizes itself as the armed militia who show up when you don't pay for something, don't follow the law, or go back on your (supposed) promise.

If I discover you unconscious on the floor, it is my moral prerogative to "search for an obstructed air-way" and "perform artificial respiration" or "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" -- in plain speak: save your life.

Once alive (older), you could berate me for having done that. But my judgment tells me that you would like it; even in the groggy state that you awake in, I can 'see in your eyes' that you're glad I did what I did; and when you reassume your consensual adult act, you agree -- or maybe not? But I done right by God and by my conscience.

This impossibility of consent is also shewn at a law court. Someone is tried for what he did, or said, or consented to -- but the person sitting in the courtroom and the person who did the 'crime' are not the same person. If they were, it would be ethical to rape someone who consented first but later changed her mind. "You can't step in the same river twice" as they say.

Consent is of course an overdetermination, however, one of it's most important functions can be fairly clearly identified: to maintain the unethical -- though 'fair' -- capitalist class's ownership and exploitation. The philosophical impossibility of consent further exposes the many other faults and contradictions between the law of the purpose built, capitalist, dominant discourse -- and the law of the heart.


* Love cathexis are finally reflex, however complicated.
* Non-intervention.
* As a dialectical metaphor, the lack might have been attributable to the hunger of the one who accrued the debt -- the northerner starving, tricks the abundant southerner into giving credit.

Annotation


I'm looking at a feminist text these days. It is a criticism of consent ideology from the standpoint of, call it, women's rights. So it isn't such a leap to write a critique of consent from the standpoint of children's rights. While women have been commodified, their sexuality legalized, by consent; children have been turned totally into valueless objects, and their sexuality illegalized.

Capitalism and Consent is an article on anarchist sexual ethics.

I'm calling it rape if someone is forced against their will regarding sex. Forced to -- or forced not to.

I hold the anarchist thesis to be: Submit to none -- submit none, as Shakespeare has it in Hamlet, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."

It is because of the requirements of the capitalist system that consent must be defined as old enough to decide (16, 18, 21 ...) and that sex must be contractual that girl-love is illegal. But the argument is a chimera: real consent has to do with empathy and perceptivity, not legal paper; and sexuality is not a commodity.


He consented to state ordered chemical castration against his will.
He submitted to state ordered chemical castration against his will.

Do these two sentences have the same meaning? Yes.

Do these two sentences have meaning? Yes.

How can I consent to anything against my will? There are two different lines here; to illustrate: in court I may be guilty or not guilty. But never innocent. In fact, I may be guilty (legally) and innocent (morally).


Consent is a 'freedom from', a right or protection. Contra 'freedom to'. We conta I. There is no capitalist I for a child who can't sign. Individualist revolutions are passé as socialist revolutions are, the next revolution is subjectless. Consent ideology is a code. The right thing to do can not be codified. A definition would spoil it. Exactly no one chooses. As Sarte put it: "nothing", or as in the Norman Rockwell painting: "Each according to the dictates of his own conscience", or via the Indian's "That thou art", it becomes "submit to none but Allah" in Islam. There is no such thing as science-fact. Only hypothesis and theory. Causation is never certain. And so consent is never certain.

Does a dog need to sign a contract to say it likes being pet? or doesn't like being yanked by the neck? No. We don't need a cow's signature to know it doesn't want to be slaughtered. Or a baby to sign on the dotted line when he wants his nappy changed.

Equally so, ejaculating on a sea urchin is right or wrong if the sea urchin has no idea that it is being included in my sexuality? What if an immigrant signs to buy a thousand quid vacuum cleaner? (What if a Thai bar-girl dodges againsts her promise? No tip, fixed price: bar-fine irrecoverable.)

"1 If I discover you unconscious on the floor, it is my moral prerogative to "search for an obstructed air-way" and "perform artificial respiration" or "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" -- in plain speak: save your life.

2 Once alive (older), you could berate me for having done that. But my judgment tells me that you would like it; even in the groggy state that you awake in, I can 'see in your eyes' that you're glad I did what I did; and when you reassume your consensual adult act, you agree -- or maybe not? But I done right by God and by my conscience."

To understand what this is about, you need to play mad-libs. Do you know this game? Now re-read these paragraphs, but it isn't this grave matter that was in paragraph 1, instead change 1 to a different kind of horizontal scene: invert it: to venial, so instead of lying on the floor dieing with me over you, doing compressions and mouth-to-mouth -- it is an erotic scene (the other gift of life): 'sexual abuse' -- 'rape' of a child; and then read paragraph 2 in that light.

Communism and consent? It must be the same in capitalism and in communism? Rather than capital, it is the people that are owed?

re. courts: Are you the same person today that you were yesterday? Will you always be the same person you are now?

Things are getting better, no more 'pound of flesh' or 'debtors prisons' like in the old days.

What makes you think that the legalization of so-called 'child-love' would bring any kind of benefit to human society as a whole? This seems to be your main concern in this topic, this is why I am asking.

Yet I have always believed that a human society is constructed in such a manner as to ensure the greater goal of humankind (i.e., self-perpetuation).

I do not see how total anarchism, everybody being 'free' to do whatever comes to their mind, whatever they interpret as their 'will', would make society a better place.

There is a difference between liberty and license. The first is enjoyed (theoretically) by most people, the latter is generally explored only by a few ones. And with pretty personal/subjective intentions.

Aren't you granting 'will' to people unable to understand or do anything about it?

Ok, somehow I knew you'd have to ignore this.

Who do you think is not 'prepared' here to discuss this issue, you or me?

This is really a strong critique. It hits the nail on the head (it can only be "ignored", non-intervention). This is I think the central line of criticism,

Quote:

Quote: If someone/thing is incapable of having a will, or expressing a will, their will can only be considered in abstract for me. Abstraction is a vice for anarchism. Therefore, we teach non-intervention here. I didn't deny the 'will' of people, I doubt the ability of some people to fully understand or do anything about their 'will'. Children and mentally-ill people, for instance. Without someone to tell them that they have a 'will' (to attribute his/her own 'will' to them) how would these people conceive their 'own' will? In the specific case of child-love, when and how does a child express a need to be (sexually) 'loved'? Outside the desire of the adult part of the relation, which 'will' is being respected here? ... It's truly sadistic to have a 'relationship' with a being incapable of feeling genuine sexual desire, and I'd call it abnormal and anti-natural too. Now, if you said that the sea urchin had a 'will', could be a 'person' with individuality and choice, would it make good sexual partners of sea urchins? If it's you, the reasonong adult male, who says what sexuality and sexual desire is, why and how the will of the non-thinking is being 'respected'?

I have made the case that consent ideology is wrong because it is an authority system, it is an abstraction, it is a lie. You ask about situations where there is a contradiction: there is no choice but to take authority. How can I morally oppress my authority (perception of the situation, sexuality) onto another, when authority is immoral?

* * *

What if someone is bound, with tape over his eyes and he is a mute; but rats are eating him? Can I assume that he doesn't want those rats gnawing at him and shew them away, (obstructing the rats, which is wrong)? And if so, then we now have licence to make all sorts of assumptions about what people want! Starting with girl-love, after all, children are too young to express their will, so we have to assume what they like.

Law is the same as science; it describes. But science is never certain, it is hypothetical, and contradictions in a theory develop until it is replaced with a new truth. And this is how it is with law too, it is objective and empirical: precedent corresponds to hypothesis, statute law to the so-called laws of science (aka the grand and enduring theories). The vocabulary is the same because the methodology is the same: the social sciences deal with 'cases', the legal system deals with 'cases; there are diagnostic codes for psychologists, and criminal codes and customs codes for the law; a courtroom is a sort of moral laboratory, exhibits are collected, weighed -- dissected, (lady-justice symbol holds attributes a scales and a -- scalpel), dispassionate and objective. Science can not explain and describe all of reality any more than law can.

I'm reading this week from Alan Wertheimer, he writes several critiques of consent. A very first distinction he makes in the text I'm looking at today is between PVCL and PVCM, that is, between principals of valid consent-legal and principals of valid consent-moral. These are not the same.

There is empirical evidence that contradicts established scientific theory, and there are real life experiences that contradict the law. Some of these people have seen UFOs.

Young people are very expressive and very sexual. Children are effusions of eroticism -- this is how I remember childhood. So the objection is moot, children have a concept of sexuality. They have psychic energy and they have the mental tool, sexuality, as vehicle to carry it. So they have both the will and also expressivity.

We have to deal with this everyday, deal with situations where we are not certain what will exactly is being expressed, or who that will is. (Maybe this is the norm in exchanges and in society?)

Agents have a will. A rock might be said to have a will, but ordinarily this isn't said about rocks. A rational man has a will. In between these two extremes are a whole liminal world of creatures (imaginary and otherwise) who might have a will, and if they do, their expression of that will is difficult to interpret.

Agency is magical thinking. Sense of presence. The ancient primitives attributed agency to trees, the Moon, mountains and all sorts of things. Agency, expression of a will, is a construct; it has objective utility; a rain-dance is just bad science. Courts and civil society need to posit these theoretical entities just as quantum physics needs to postulate gluons or gravitons.

Will is nothing but will to power. Might is right, will is only it's physical objective manifestation.

The highest will is God, there is only this one will which is determinate and never goes astray. What is willed is what is.

Are you ever certain what someone is going to do next? You are not. As freedoms who take our cause from nothing, and toss in solipsism too, we don't know what someone will do next. This is why we say it is never scientific to trust someone; we might have a theory or hypothesis at best.

There is a mad-man, in a theater. He has been stalking an escape-artist for many years, and tonight he strikes. The escape artist is under nine tons of concrete, he knows what has transpired, but the mad-man has struck at just the right moment, and the escape-artist is now totally trapped. The mad-man announces that at exactly seven in the evening he will shoot dead the helpless and innocent magician. Seven o'clock is just a few moments away. As it happens, a highly trained marksman is in the audience, he has his weapon in his ruck-sac. Assuming that it is the right thing to do to shoot the mad-man to rescue the magician, still -- we can not be certain that the mad-man will shoot the magician at seven, just because he said so. Science and law are useless against the free volatility inherent in being human.

But, we have an everyday attitude where an interiority has a will, but may or may not be able to express it.

When I can not interpret the will of another, there are two courses, the one is to avoid and withdraw from the situation, not to use authority, and the other is to make my best guess.

Offer and acceptance. Suggestion must be immoral. This is obvious when we look at mass advertising, but not obvious when we think about asking someone out on a date.

We are sometimes forced into situations where we have to take the suggestion as given. This suggestion is given by God, or it comes from nothing; this is the necessity and the will. Freedom happens in a given situation. Man is free, not I was born gay, not I was made gay, but -- I choose to be gay. Action is a kind of thought. The distinction between the act or deed and the intent or idea is made from the perspective of the objective. From my perspective, when Wittgenstein asked, "How do I move my arm?" he concludes it comes from nowhere; it is a sort of thought that originates as out-of-nowhere (freely, no cause).


NAMBLA said, "Sex by eight, or it's too late." Assuming that with sex one is ignorant until taught, when is the right time to teach it?


Let's treat this issue of Sea urchins as separate for the moment. Sea urchins don't grow up to be men and women, which might be an important point that might differentiate the morality of loving animals versus loving children. It is the most difficult point, and we should also consider the ethics of sex with traditionally inanimate objects, fruit, etc.

Effort wrote:

Alexei wrote: This is not anarchism. It is submission to a construction. Yes, but can we afford to live without such a construction?

"afford", money, money, money, with you.

Ok, we are somewhat acquainted, so I'll be frank with you: (Let's speak plain English here, by all means!) I seriously suspect that you are trying here, desperately, to find a manner of justifying your..."peculiar" views on the sexuality of children. When you say something like that:

Alexei wrote:

Young people are very expressive and very sexual. Children are effusions of eroticism -- this is how I remember childhood. So the objection is moot, children have a concept of sexuality, they have psychic energy and they have the mental tool, sexuality, as vehicle to carry it. So they have both the will and also expressivity.

aren't you supposed to offer me more than these mere declarations? I do not see how an eight year old child, who isn't even cognizant of what sex consists of, and doesn't have a body mature enough for the sexual act, can have either a 'will' or a desire to express such a sexuality. I do not know of any situation where children are naturally led to such expressivity, and in most cases I hear of 'relationships' between a child and a grown up man, the child was always forced to have the 'relationship', it never was a matter of consent or choice.

I'm addressing just this specific point of your post because I think this whole thread is nothing more, nothing less than a means to expose the relationship between the capitalist status quo and the prohibition/censorship of 'child love', and this sex thing seems to be your main concern in these boards (the reason why you have been banned so many times from ILP)...

Couple of things I noticed and wanted to point out...

Quote:

I do not see how an eight year old child, who isn't even cognizant of what sex consists of, and doesn't have a body mature enough for the sexual act, can have either a 'will' or a desire to express such a sexuality.

What part of sex are you talking about that they do not understand? Obviously you do not mean to say that a child knows not that touching causes reactions, either pleasurable or painful, and that painful touch should be avoided while pleasurable touch should be sought out. Surely you do not mean to say that a child is somehow missing an understanding that pain is bad and pleasure is good.

Beyond the pleasurable touching, what more is there to sex? Well, we could say reproduction and sexually-transmitted diseases are two very significant potentials to sexual intercourse. However, that is referring to a knowledge of the reproductive system. Surely you do not mean to say that a person has to know about the inner workings of the digestive system in order to reap the benefits of eating. Surely you do not mean to say that a person has to know about the potential consequences of eating foods with certain nutrients over others in order to desire foods that bring pleasure and avoid foods that bring pain.

About the body maturity, I must ask you to define "sexual act." Are you referring to penetrative sexual intercourse? Are you referring to any form of stimulation of the genitals? If by "sexual act" you include all activity before sexual intercourse, then your supporting argument that their bodies are not mature enough for the sexual act can be observed to be false. Masturbation, for example, is seen commonly among children. Hell, even a 32-week-old female foetus was observed to masturbate in the womb.

There are certain facts: 1) children have sexual organs; 2) children have sexual responses; 3) children have romantic (if not sexual) desires. There is really no disputing these three facts as they are observed in the world. Because of these three facts, there is far more evidence supporting that their bodies are very well ready for sexual activity. Do you really believe that after all this evolution, children would still be born with these three facts applying to them if sexual activity would bring harm to them? Considering that other animals are seen to have intergenerational sexual activity, and considering the intergenerational sexual activity seen throughout much of human history as well, I really find it hard to believe that something so harmful would remain to this very day.

Now, about penetrative sexual intercourse, you really do have to ask yourself two questions. Firstly, is it true that most childlovers seek penetrative sexual intercourse with a child? If you have not interacted with many childlovers or at least heard their views, then you cannot answer that question with any shred of accuracy. You simply do not know. Secondly, just because something may be harmful, and indeed it is an uncertainty as there are many cases of sexual intercourse between an adult and a child resulting in nothing but good for both partners, does that mean we have to ban it? This question can be asked in many discussions about many topics such as gun control laws, drug laws and marriage laws. Should to tell two people they cannot do something together simply because we say it is not right?

Quote:

I do not know of any situation where children are naturally led to such expressivity, and in most cases I hear of 'relationships' between a child and a grown up man, the child was always forced to have the 'relationship', it never was a matter of consent or choice.

And where have you heard of these cases? I can point you to many testimonials made by partners in consensual intergenerational relationships. If your source is the mass media, then do you honestly believe you are going to hear about the relationships that worked? If you must bring personal references in, then I can say that I personally know of quite a number of these relationships that have occured.

Quote:

I remember having experienced some sort of sexual arousal only when I was 11, 12 years old. I don't really recall my having any kind of sexual thought before this age. Now, if I had been abused, or experienced a similar situation, maybe I would have known it, who knows...

So you are saying that sexual thoughts are brought on by knowledge? Or are you saying that you may have known that your feelings were sexual only if you were abused or took part in a sexual relationship? If the former, then I have to argue that feelings do not depend on understanding. We grow hungry and tired regardless of our knowledge of the inner workings of our bodies. If the latter is what you meant, then that is fine. You do not have to have known those feelings were related to the sexual system in order to feel them.

Pantheadoros,

I'd really like this conversation to be only between me and Alexei, unless you're yet another fake profile he created.

I'll see you on the other thread.

Good call Fabiano!

Will you, dear, dear pedophile is secret, analyze the information I've freely and honestly provided for you, or shall I wait, indefinitely, until you muster up the courage to drop your trousers and suck my dick?

I said I would not further the discussion on topic, but you addressed me and so I shall reply on just that.

Fabiano wrote:

Pantheadoros wrote: Fair enough. I shall respect your wishes. (And no, I am in no way associated with Alexei.) But you were surely attracted to this board by his post, huh?

No, I arrived at this forum through other means, and the first thread I found on the Society board that had to do with childlove (or more specifically girllove) just so happened to be his. You make it sound as if there is only one supporter for childlove and that no others can come without being the one in disguise.

Alexei wrote:

Welcome Pantheadoros ! I for one am very happy to hear your thoughts. Fabiano, is this an tactic to control the theater of operations?

Hello. Even if that were Fabiano's intent, it matters little since I am not going to be silent on this forum in other threads. As you can see, I address the issues in your other thread as well. However, I will comment on etiquette...

Fabiano wrote:

No. I just want to hear your arguments pro-child love here, not his.

This is a public forum, and so the fact that I even agreed to refrain from involving myself further in this particular thread should be taken with gratitude. I could have just as easily told you to live with it. If you want to make private conversation, I believe this forum has PM capabilities. It is common etiquette to not make exclusively private conversation on a public forum. But because this is not the only thread on childlove, you can have your little private conversation here as far as I am concerned.

I have my own...reasons for willing this conversation to be private. But you're right, this is a public forum and you can post wherever you want if you so wish. Alexei himself knows that I'm not a supporter for censorship.

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/davos/article13833603/Der-Kapitalismus-hat-einfach-nicht-geliefert.html

it failed to deliver. \!!

what do you call that, in the terminology and context you chose?

i'd call it dry gr*nd. hip, isn't it?

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/1000000-economists-can-be-wrong-the-free-trade-fallacies/

and what was this thread really meaning to convey?

\!!

quote imp-pulse: since i am the eternal student here,


no argument there linde but how did teachers get to be teachers instead of remaining eternal students

quote imp-pulse :maybe god wanted to do YOU a favor .


GOD did me a favour 2,000 years ago by sending his son to die for me on the cross

quote imp-pulse :or are certain bodies just not ideally equipped?


well you are certainly ideally equiped imp-pulse to do SATANS work in this world which is to fill the lower mind with junk mental food but you are completly USELESS in the service of GOD

Alexei - Right now, it is very EN VOGUE to lash out at pedophiles, and to send them to prison where the prison population will abuse them. It is not the case that any of the men on this forum have any genuine care for the welfare of young women and girls. The duty of caring falls on our shoulders. Pay no attention to the slope-headed cave men here. They only know how to lash out in aggression and threats.


You must keep three questions always fresh in your mind. Repeat them every morning to yourself to keep them fresh.

• Do I appreciate the girls around me?
  
• Am I projecting my own desires onto girls, instead of appreciating them for who they are?
  
• When I have power over someone else near me, do I exercise mercy?

Follow this simple recipe and no one will be hurt by you. Everything should be fine.

consent?

start with capitalism and its language:

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cheap+Money

invest in opinions to buy democratic "consent"?





\!!

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1083-how-obama-is-making-america-qmore-respectedq-by-vaporising-the-enemy

yeah, it's all psychology, nowadays.

for example?


sorry, it's not only the language, it's the message too.

has disappeared from page 1?

has disappeared from page 1?




those busy little gremlins