Refuting an absurd “mutual consent” straw man

Recently I saw this:


I didn’t need to read beyond the preview and neither do you.

Let’s first address what consent actually is: Consent is when you give permission or agree to do something. The ‘mutual’ in mutual consent is redundant because if both parties don’t consent, one of them is being forced against his or her will. And that is the only context in which consent is ever discussed.

Normally when we discuss consent, we are talking about rape, which is when someone, normally a woman, is forced against her will to perform a sexual act.

Little Johnny tries to frame mutual consent as an agreement between two people to do something “immoral”. But literally nobody except little Johnny has such a discussion. That’s not at all what consent is about. Consent is normally only used when we discuss sex between two adults, that is between two people legally old enough to be able to agree to have sex.

Consent is relevant when somebody was forced to do something he or she didn’t agree to do. That’s all. And nobody ever claimed that when two people consent to do something bad, their consent is somehow defensible.

Furthermore, John is using code here… He equates homosexuality with something immoral, but doesn’t say it directly. But everyone in that group knows exactly what he means. To Christians like him, homosexuality is the same as paedophilia and anything else he considers immoral. This, ladies and gentleman is what Christian hate speech looks like. It’s often subtle in that he doesn’t say directly that he hates gay people, but that’s what he really means. Such hate speech ironically often does not violate community standards.

In fact, the reason I’m in that awful Facebook group is that a friend, who happens to be gay, invited me there. The group is filled with some of the most hateful, stupid, Trump supporting Christians I have seen anywhere. The group has been infiltrated by atheists, lots of atheists, and we generally troll them there, but I do find it useful to see what these sorts of people think. We are surrounded by them after all, and when they feel “safe” to express their true beliefs in such a group, that’s when their true nature reveals itself.

Edit: I see a friend just posted this on another group:


He’s right. I’m not sure if his claim that no human being ever intervenes is accurate, but in principle he’s correct. Real hate speech, homophobic vitriol by people like John or “Activist Mommy” does not violate community standards, but harmless jokes often do, as does nudity (Why though, when you must be an adult to have an account?), and even worse, activists often get shut down there.

4 thoughts on “Refuting an absurd “mutual consent” straw man

  1. Not everything that is declared a ‘Sin,’ is immoral, evil, or even ‘wrong.’ If a Jew declares that eating pork, or wearing mixed-fabric clothes is a sin, most Christian Apologists just laugh at him…. and then proceed to declare their own unfounded opinions of sin as absolute truth. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, I didn’t want to go there in this post though. Many of the sins are either rather arbitrary, or about shaming women for having sex, or shaming people for having sex that doesn’t conform to the Christian opinion on what sex should entail. Mind you, Christians didn’t always believe this, so their views about other people’s sex seem mostly modern. And of course, sex work is a valid profession too. I didn’t read the rest of the guy’s rant about that so I don’t know where he went w.r.t. prostitution, and also didn’t read his follow-up post on the same subject, still blathering about his oddball straw man of mutual consent.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s