Discussion UsefulNotes / Consent

Just wondering. In the Age of Consent section is says this:

"It's sometimes been said when there's an issue of consensual sex where one or both are below the age of consent, the only issue is what their parents think. It may be awkward as all hell, but a child choosing to be open and honest with their parents about their (prospective) sex life is far less dangerous than the alternatives."

I feel there needs to be note somewhere. Like, what are the "far more dangerous" alternatives to not telling your parents? How are these alternatives so far "dangerous?".

The only "danger" that gets mentioned is "The police might find out and they will be prosecuted because they are both having sex with someone below the age of consent". But that's not really "dangerous" so much as really humiliating. I mean, how common is Judicial Corruption in California that there is a high chance the court will incarcerate two perfectly willing, similar aged under 18-year-olds for having the misfortune of not being born a couple of years earlier, as to not make the sex legal? I think the whole "6 months jail" thing is only in exceptional circumstances, like if a boyfriend was pressuring his girlfriend into sex, and getting her pregnant, ruining her life, then he would go to jail.

Either we need to explain other dangers of not telling parents about your sex life or we should change the phrase "far less dangerous" to "far less awkward/humiliating" if the only "danger" is "police finding out".

I mean, there are other actual dangers might be "unwanted pregnancy" or "peer pressure into having sex", which telling your parents can help prevent by them providing protection and explaining to the kids that they don't have to have sex to be a loving couple, if they don't want to.

@Tdarcos added some content drawing a distinction between "consent" and "permission":

"Also note that 'consent' is not 'permission'. Consent is a much lower standard, it merely means a reasonable belief the person agreed to something. Permission is an explicit agreement. Permission always includes consent, but consent only implies permission.

Now, in that respect you can have consent or permission. If a guy takes a girl into his bedroom, takes off her clothes and gets in bed with her and proceeds to fondle her and go on from there, as long as she's conscious and old enough to be considered able to consent to sex, that's okay. As long as she doesn't say no, it's considered he has consent, even if he has sex with her without asking her first. What the law looks at, if the issue comes up, is whether she could have changed her mind or did do so.

That's why having sex with a drunk girl who passes out is rape (she can't tell you if she changed her mind), but not if you get inside her and she complains and you stop (you had reason to believe she consented, and because she told you she didn't and you stopped immediately, you are considered not to have acted improperly).

However, the sky's the limit if you have permission. If your regular girlfriend tells you you can have sex with her any time you want, even if she's asleep or drunk, then she's given you permission, and as long as she gave it freely, means she's not likely to complain you raped her if she wakes up in the middle of something you started while she was asleep. She still has the right to change her mind at any time, however, and you generally have to stop immediately if she does."

I did some Googlage and I was unable to find any reference to such a distinction made anywhere. Most of the sources I could find— legal sources, academic sources, etc.— used the terms more or less interchangeably. A few made the distinction that "consent" can only be granted in regard to oneself, whereas "permission" can be extended on behalf of another person over whom one holds authority or responsibility (e.g. a parent giving permission for a child to go on a field trip).

A few others made the distinction that "consent" implies equality, whereas "permission" implies authority or some other power imbalance, but those were not what I'd consider authoritative or reliable sources.

If the OP can cite and link to some source outside This Very Wiki in which a distinction is made between "consent" and "permission" that supports his addition to this page, please do so.

Another area of interest is consent in relation to intercourse and AIDS. Currently, in the United Stated, Canada, and many other countries it is possible to be sent to jail for significant periods of time for having intercourse with someone and not telling them you have HIV. HIV does not have to be transmitted for conviction of someone as a sexual offender. One can even be convicted if one uses a condom and has a viral load of zero. The idea is that consent cannot be given if you don't know all the risks. Fair enough, but what I wonder is, who doesn't know their are risks associated with intercourse? Who doesn't know that HIV is transmitted by intercourse?

Who is the 'we' this article keeps referring to?