|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Actually its not an open question....
- It is an open question as to whether one may consent to giving up the right to not consent to some action. For instance, if someone says "For the next 15 minutes I give up my right to refuse to have sex with you. It is ok if I say 'No' and you go right ahead."
Roadrunner 01:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But surely in that situation you are giving consent? "For the next 15 minutes, I give you consent to have sex with me, even if I say 'No'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Sociocracy talk page soemone distinguishes between consent and consensus, saying that in the latter agreement is not required. The political bit is basically a stub. What excatly is meant by it? And should this not be turned into a disambiguation page, given that the two subjects are completely (?) different?
Also, does this apply to Wikipedia? DirkvdM 07:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed the reference to sexual assault because it was ambiguous. Consent is a defence against rape in the same way it's a defence against theft (we agreed to have sex; you gave me permission to use your car). So it's not an exception, at least not the way it read. Of course, sexual assault is more complex than theft, and if anyone wants to expand upon it, clearly, by all means do so.220.127.116.11 19:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Need to know if "tortious interference with contract" can be used as related to marriage. Ex: Wife leaves husband for rich guy who was aware of marriage. Husband tells rich guy to see his way out of the relationship, but he continues to see the married woman regardless.
In this case, the marriage is the "contract", and the rich guy is knowingly interfering with the contract being fulfilled.
Someone please tell me if this is a legitimate case that could be brought before the court??? And based on experience, if you could actually win in court???
Thanks, Single Dad
- Wiki is not a free legal clinic for giving advice but the answer to your question (in English law only) lies in the conversion of divorce from "fault" to "no fault". When I started off doing divorce cases back in the 1950s, you petitioned against both the "wife" and the "other man". Even further back in time, there used to be actions for loss of consortium. But with the change to "no fault", husbands lost the right to blame third parties for the breakdown in their marriages. David91 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The text presents "consent" as an excuse, but it is more properly viewed as a justification--as those two terms are distinguished in contemporary legal theory. "Excuse" implies the conduct is wrongful. "Justification" indicates that the defence makes otherwise wrongful conduct non-wrongful. Consent renders conduct non-wrongful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Consent is more than just a legal concept
The page currently begins "Consent as a term of jurisprudence is a possible defence"...which is only a limited interpretation of the word consent. The concept of consent is important not just in law, but in ethics, and I think it could be argued (I certainly feel this way) that issues of consent in law follow from issues in ethics. I can think of a lot of areas where this is true: sexual activity and in human relationships in general, in medicine, in marketing (great source on this: ), even in religion. I'd like to see either this page expanded to include discussion of more than just the legal term, or, to create separate pages on the other uses of the term and create a disambiguation page; and if we do this I think consent should take you directly to the general concept, not the specialized legal term, although I'm open to discussion on the matter. Cazort (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- So true. Any woman's group will tell you that any time a male takes advantage of someone drunk, on drugs, on rebound from a break up, ljkgifhpoefghjti[y9tobsolete law only. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that archaic gender laws that segregated men and women in the economic and social spheres were based on the now-obsolete idea that the consent of a woman did not have the same value as the consent of a man. There should maybe be more research on this idea in order to better explain the West's evolution from a patriarchal society to an egalitarian society. ADM (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
With /without permission
Exactly explaning consnt is like rape you say No put they do it even if you don't want them to . It's like anything consent is not just all about rape. If your mom tell's you to do your homework and you don't that is switched around in consent but you were aloud to do it, you chose not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)