I think, C_L, you are glossing over a very important point here.
Do you think that consent is only needed if physical, emotional, or mental damage is inherent?
So if I (don't like to even type this) were to digitally penetrate a woman when she was passed out, leaving no physical damage, and let's just say she was blacked out enough that she never knew that it happened at all, that wouldn't be an issue in this scenario?
Just because an animal doesn't have the higher cognitive function to understand what is happening doesn't mean that the animal with the higher cognitive function shouldn't be held accountable for the action.
Do you think that consent is only needed if physical, emotional, or mental damage is inherent?
So if I (don't like to even type this) were to digitally penetrate a woman when she was passed out, leaving no physical damage, and let's just say she was blacked out enough that she never knew that it happened at all, that wouldn't be an issue in this scenario?
Just because an animal doesn't have the higher cognitive function to understand what is happening doesn't mean that the animal with the higher cognitive function shouldn't be held accountable for the action.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
