Talk:Consent

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dfranco3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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 82.21.7.64 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sociocracy

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)

Rape/sexual assault

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.24.64.223.203 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)

Excuse/justification

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 76.199.6.80 (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: [1]), 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, under emotional influences of any type, or in any not objectively able to assess their actions against their life plans - it is rape. Modern law is slowly realizing that only a written contract can truly be taken as consent. Or perhaps a more evolved objective society may harvest genetic material at birth and then neuter all citizen. But wikipedia is the last place to discuss it. Wikipedia needs to stay away from appearances of being any sort of authority on current laws. History of obsolete law only. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gender equality

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 99.155.70.175 (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is discussion of consent/sexual here?

It seems to that the discussion at Consent#Sexual_activity should be in the Consent (criminal law) article. Why is it here in the article about tort law? Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess it was felt that the sexual activity aspect of consent should be mentioned at this article. It's currently mentioned in this one and the Consent (criminal law) article. Per WP:Summary style, we could summarize the matter at this article and move the in-depth material to the Consent (criminal law) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that there be a summary both in Consent (criminal law) and in Consent#Sexual_activity but point to the Sexual assault as it has consent 63 times in the article and inherently already has the meat and potatoes of what they all mean. You could also send to the Rape article but it only has the word consent 44 times. - Pmedema (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Consent thats a hot word"

User:72.50.144.17 - you have now twice now, (here and here) added the following:

"Consent thats a hot word".

References

The biggest issue here is that there is no title in the citation, and the link is just to https://www.nytimes.com -- there is insufficient information to verify the content and I even searched the NYT site and could not find what article this is referring to. So as it stands this violates the WP:VERIFY policy. Additionally the content is not really saying anything. Perhaps there is more that can be done with the source, but no one can tell without more information in the citation. At minimum -- what is the title of the article you are trying to cite? (NB - I searched the NYT for November 28, 2016 and the word "consent" (search result is here) and there is one article: Henning, Peter J. (28 November 2016). "Congress May Hold Key to Handling Trump's Conflicts of Interest". The New York Times. which doesn't contain the quote nor mention somebody named "Griffin Aliff". Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202053600/http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137476159.0009 to http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137476159.0009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

detail fails

Most specifically, I see where contributors have had no exposure to lawyerese, but there's other fine-tuning to do as well.

I've marked up a couple of statements in Sexual activity. When the topic strays onto examining what is/isn't rape in a legalistic sense, legalistic sources should be cited (rather than sociological). This is not to minimize victims: it takes a judge &/or jury to verify that rape occurred, and that can occur whether or not the victim (as in cases of statutory rape) consented.

A paragraph in that section leads with In literature — as I could not readily determine WHICH literature, this should be spelled out or rewritten; as stands, it's weaselly, a pompous "some people." And, again: better a definitive legal work than a sociology paper.

In the lede: the proper term is not "expressed consent" but express consent. (At least, that's how I've heard it in every major-league sports broadcast I can remember for the past half-century, in a boilerplate statement that begins with "This copyrighted telecast…".) The first appears 20 times in W'pedia, many incorrect; the second, 84. The adjective express means "definitely stated, not merely implied" or "precisely and specifically identified to the exclusion of anything else." The common usage means merely to "convey [a thought or feeling] in words or by gestures and conduct" which makes "expressed" MUCH more wishy-washy than suitable here. (It is also weaselly that of the four "types of consent" it's the only one without an article link, and Expressed consent lazily routes to Consent.)

There is much too much hectoring in the lede about sexual consent. This is especially egregious seeing as Sexual consent is doing fine on its own, and there's ALSO Rape#Consent AND Consent (criminal law) (is anyone being properly diligent and assuring that these FOUR ARTICLES are all kept properly apace?). With that in mind, reducing both the size and depth of the entire Sexual activity section seems obvious — stick to the topic, and route the details elsewhere.

As the Tort section deals with lawyerese, every statement really must have a credible source, and this remains true if there's more than one statement made within a given sentence.

Also, it is NOT WP's PLACE to dispense legal advice, so examples MUST be specifically ascribed to a specific source. (I'm pretty certain that waivers of liability DO NOT reliably protect ANYONE from suit and are readily thrown out by courts, often because the defendant didn't bother to determine whether the plaintiff was at the time CAPABLE of giving informed consent, e.g. drunk).

Social science research is a bulky gray chunk that relies entirely on one citation, and that is wobbly at best being a few pages in a single paper that's not a common reference for sociologists.

The following Planning law has no support at all, and comes across as an utter no sequitur/brainfart. Maybe it'd fare better placed higher in the article — only, of course, properly sourced.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit help

Hi,

In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.

Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)

Thanks in advance. Warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Why do the general words Age of Consent relate to sex only?

Hi,

It would be an interesting addition to the article if someone can find out why consent when referring to age of consent seems to refer to sex rather than anything that could be consented at a particular age.

Thanks in advance.

ZhuLien (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Concent" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Concent has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 3 § Concent until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)