No Such Thing as Consent

makarios, religion, christian, liar, pornography,
[triggers: rape, pornography]

If you ask most anyone what the difference is between sex and rape, you'll get a simple answer: consent. In the former act, both parties agree to participate, the latter act involves only perpetrator and victim.

Unless you are Makarios, in which case women of any age are incapable of consent, and pornography involving consenting adults is exactly the same thing as kiddie porn.

Do I like pornography? Not particularly. Do I want my niece to be a porn star someday? No. Do I think adults have the right to engage in legal activities if they choose to, even if I don't like or agree with those activities? Yes. Is there a difference between what consenting adults do together and what is done to a child? Absolutely.

First of all, Makarios commits libel by suggesting that Tristan Vick supports child pornography. Mr. Vick does not support child pornography. Makarios, you see, conflates pornography involving consenting aduts with child pornography, which, by its very nature, involves at least one nonconsenting party. One party, in fact, that cannot consent.

The comments explode with "how can you say that?! Mr. Vick supports porn not kiddie porn", to which Makarios replies:

Ah, so you make a distinction do you? Adult porn good, child porn bad? Is that the way it works in atheist world?

Yes, in the real world, that is how it works. People who are capable of consent get to consent to what they wish, people who are incapable of consent cannot. Makarios knows this. He knows we don't let minors enter legal contracts or drink alcohol, not because these things are inherently
bad, but because we have decided that there is a point at which you are simply incapable of making decisions, i.e., consent, so we won't let you do it.

This gets pointed a few times, to which Makarios replies:

Thanks Gorth. The atheist with selective morality indicates that “consent” is the measuring stick between good and bad. And at what age Gorth? You think that a 12year old can’t give consent? How about a 10 year old? He's offered 10 dollars that will supply food for his family. All he has to do is let some filthy jerk take pictures of him giving someone a blow job. You think that 10 year old can't consent to making 10 dollars?Does it differ from country to country, Gorth? You think that a 14year old in America is as mature as a 14 in Taiwan?

Never mind all that. What you are saying, in your profound ignorance is this. A child who has been emotionally, and sexually abused grows up and "consents" to further degradation and abuse as an adult and that makes it all ok - because, according to Gorth, she can give consent. I say shame on every one of you. Once again it is the Christian who alone is trying to defend women from those who live by survival of the most powerful. Atheists, giving verbal support for the degrading of those most damaged by life. Priceless.

Ignoring the "all Christians do this and all atheists do that" element of it, yes, a certain age of consent is fairly arbitrary, and does not address each individual person's actual ability to consent. Some people may well be capable of consent at 14, some people may never reach that point. However, it is simply impractical at best to try to determine whether each individual person is capable of consent at each and every point they may want to consent, so we draw a line in the sand: 16, 18, 21.

Also, the 10 year old in the above example is not being asked to consent to earning $10, they are being asked to consent to sexual activity. 10 year olds are not capable of this.

Makarios then makes the argument that adult women are not capable of consent, particularly if they were abused as children.

Makarios knows? I know exactly what the hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes and those in the porn industry with whom I've worked have told me. And I can tell you absolutely that their "consent" is no consent at all. Because of childhood sexual and emotional abuse all these women know is sexual degradation at the hands of men. All they know to survive is to allow men to use them and abuse them sexually. And here you are, the free thinking atheists in all your wisdom, actually believing that porn has something to do with freedom. Even the women who post here are willing o turn on other women. If it might help make a case against a Chistian, anyone is expendable. I find it disgusting.

"Hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes"? Really? I'm not sure that in 34 years I've even met hundreds and hundreds of people, let alone hundreds and hundreds of prostitutes. And "those in the porn industry with whom I've worked"? Did you work in the porn industry?

Ignoring the issue of what motivates people to work in the sex industry, those people are consenting adults. They may be making very bad decisions for utterly tragic reasons. They are still adults with every right to make those decisions. We cannot revoke a person's right to consent because they make bad decisions. First of all, everyone makes bad decisions occasionally, but also because the right to make decisions is not dependent on the decisions you make. We're not going to have anyone left to make decisions if we remove consent based on what you do with it. Obviously, if you choose to commit crimes, we do remove your right to make decisions, but that's an entirely different issue. Porn stars are not committing crimes.

By your own measure, Makarios, you are not capable of consent, because you have used your decision making privileges to commit a disgusting, illegal act: libel, in accusing a completely innocent man of supporting child pornography. We call this being hoisted by one's own petard, btw.