Magical Apple
Wisest
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2021
- Posts
- 6,246
- Reputation
- 6,482
If a woman only wants sex if a man if and only if he loves her but the man feigns emotion to get sex is that consent?
What about a man who will only have sex with a woman who is loyal to him but she is cheating and hides it.
Or how about a man who creates a completely fake persona to get women to have sex with him.
You see the problem here? Before the sexual revolution, there were clearly defined situations where people could "properly" consent to sex and thus consent was determined by circumstance rather than feeling. If sex was done in appropriate situation then one need not suffer negative psychological repercussions. Now, consent is defined by supposed "free choice" which in practice can be easily manipulated. This is the cause of the moral panic about sex in the western world. Because consent is now so hard to determine, even to peoples own psyches, they are left feeling violated from their sexual relationships.
To be ignorant and to be deceived are two different things. To be ignorant is to be a slave of the world. To be deceived is to be the slave of another man. The question will always be: Why, when all men are ignorant, and therefore already slaves, why does this latter slavery sting us so?”
Even more fundamentally, if ones decisions are merely a product of their circumstances and biological impulses, how can one "consent" to anything? The irony is that people have thrown away previous ideas about sexual morality only to create a far worse problem.
@Vermilioncore
What about a man who will only have sex with a woman who is loyal to him but she is cheating and hides it.
Or how about a man who creates a completely fake persona to get women to have sex with him.
You see the problem here? Before the sexual revolution, there were clearly defined situations where people could "properly" consent to sex and thus consent was determined by circumstance rather than feeling. If sex was done in appropriate situation then one need not suffer negative psychological repercussions. Now, consent is defined by supposed "free choice" which in practice can be easily manipulated. This is the cause of the moral panic about sex in the western world. Because consent is now so hard to determine, even to peoples own psyches, they are left feeling violated from their sexual relationships.
To be ignorant and to be deceived are two different things. To be ignorant is to be a slave of the world. To be deceived is to be the slave of another man. The question will always be: Why, when all men are ignorant, and therefore already slaves, why does this latter slavery sting us so?”
Even more fundamentally, if ones decisions are merely a product of their circumstances and biological impulses, how can one "consent" to anything? The irony is that people have thrown away previous ideas about sexual morality only to create a far worse problem.
@Vermilioncore