[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks, I think I understand your point better now.

I remember reading about a case in SC I think, where a man (I use the word loosely) was on trial for a truly horrible rape-assault which was all recorded on video from beginning to end. I will not tell you the details: it debases the mind to entertain the images. Think, "Really bad".

Well, he was acquitted. Turns out there were several videos of this same "man" doing those same sick stuff to this "woman" on several occasions; and the existence of multiple videos was successfully used in his defense, in that they established his story, that the "woman" liked the abuse,consented to the abuse, actually arranged for the videos for their later viewing enjoyment, and therefore "no harm, no foul".

I was shocked. What he had done to the woman was objectively harmful (she required medical treatment in the aftermath) and if she "consented" to it, it must be that she was out of her right mind and thus not capable of consent. No rational person would consent.

And I still think the view that consent or lack thereof is what determines whether something is a criminal offense, is sorely deficient. Germany had a case a few years back where a man consented on video to be stabbed through the heart and eaten (yes, cannibalized) and the legal system was all confused as to whether there might be something wrong with that.

We ought to recognize that there actions which are objectively abusive whether there is consent or not. What those actions are, would be good subject for a debate. How applied, will be determined by legislators. Individual cases might be murky, but that's what juries are for.

Things which are objectively harmful are to be proscribed. That's why you can't sell your baby, your willing wife, or both your kidneys.

[Sherman Logan]

That's what you get when you buy fully into the whole "consenting adult" meme. Nothing someone consents to can possibly be wrong, because to admit that would be to admit that some sexual practices are objectively wrong, which is to say immoral.

And we can't have that, because it (to their minds) creates a slippery slope where their own personal perversion can be similarly questioned.

In case you're wondering, I have two daughters and am fully in favor of death penalty for "actual" rape. The only two problems are the idea of executing someone for actions that are wrong illegal only because of the POV of the "victim," and the possibility that capital punishment for rape provides an incentive to murder.