Bill Clinton's Impeachment.

[Capitalism Forever]

I understand that consent is required in cases of force or harm, but to use your example, why would a woman taking off her shirt require the consent of those who see her? I wouldn't think it's a case of force/harm - I suppose this is part of "sexual integrity"??

Yes, it has to do with what we've come to call "sexual integrity." Here's a simple summary of the reasoning:

1. Rights are based on the requirements of man's life qua rational being.

2. Sex is a central part of such a life, therefore one has a right to choose one's sexual activities for oneself.

3. A sexual activity is something closely related to sex. Unexpectedly seeing someone expose himself to you IS closely related to sex.

BTW, since you wrote of "a woman taking off her shirt," I should remark that if she is wearing a bra, seeing her would not be a sexual activity, so her action would not require your consent for that reason. But, if you're in a place where people are expected to wear more than just a bra, her action would require your consent for that reason.

[Capitalism Forever]

[off topic]

As of now, one of my posts has been deleted. No notification or justification has been given via PM. I am assuming CF did it and reporting this to one of the other mods for verification.

Yes, I did it. See here for my reason. I forgot to delete it after I wrote I would ... seems like I need more sleep.

[mrocktor]

Since the post I brought this up in was deleted (and, in my understanding due to the other part of the post, not this one) I will reaffirm:

This is what CF's argument rests on:

A sexual activity is something closely related to sex.

That is a prime example of non-objectivity, it is not a proper definition and has no place in rational thought. Everything derived from it is invalid.

In addition,

1. Rights are the requirements for living as a rational being.

2. Non sequitur. Being important does not grant a right.

3. See above.

mrocktor

EDIT: the right to choose your sexual activities is the right to exercise judgment - the right to freedom. Of course "sexual activity" has to be defined as something you have a choice about for this to make any sense.

Edited September 27, 2006 by mrocktor

[Lathanar]

3. A sexual activity is something closely related to sex. Unexpectedly seeing someone expose himself to you IS closely related to sex.

BTW, since you wrote of "a woman taking off her shirt," I should remark that if she is wearing a bra, seeing her would not be a sexual activity, so her action would not require your consent for that reason. But, if you're in a place where people are expected to wear more than just a bra, her action would require your consent for that reason.

There is where you go wrong. You keep asserting this and offer nothing to back it up. More than that, you make it totally subjective. I may expect to see nudity in a locker room, so seeing a sexual organ is not sexual activity, but I may not expect to see it in a different setting so then it is. It's all left up to what I expect. A person wanders onto a nude beach without realizing and sees a naked woman, it's sexual activity for him and not anyone else on the beach since they know it's a nude beach.

[edit - clarification]

Edited September 27, 2006 by Lathanar

[Lathanar]

If I say "I'm going to kill you" (and say it in a serious tone) I am violating your rights. By the same token, exposing oneself without permission in an inappropriate setting is a rights violation; it is inherently sexual.

The point is hearing and understanding the words alone are not enough to be a violation of rights. It is the manner in which the words are delivered and other factors involved. The phrase "I'm going to kill you" can come up quite a lot of different ways in a variety of situations that are not a violation of rights. The perception of reality does not violate anyone's rights, it's only the actions of others that does. A gun doesn't violate rights, waving it threatenly does. A phrase doesn't violate rights, threatening someone by use of a phrase does. A penis doesn't violate rights, threatening someone with one does. You have to perceive the objects before you can determine intent. I don't know how I can state this clearer.

[LaszloWalrus]

Given the context (I'm assuming we are still speaking of Clinton) it DID constitute a threat, just as pulling out a gun in public and waving it around would.

[mrocktor]

Given the context (I'm assuming we are still speaking of Clinton) it DID constitute a threat, just as pulling out a gun in public and waving it around would.

I have no details on the incident but I'll wager that it was more pathetic than threatening. Context is necessary of course - based on what did you draw your conclusion?

mrocktor

[Lathanar]

Given the context (I'm assuming we are still speaking of Clinton) it DID constitute a threat, just as pulling out a gun in public and waving it around would.

Yes, we went over early in the thread talking about what contexts would actually have been violations, but it soon devolved to the simple act of her perceiving his penis was a sexual activity and a violation, regardless the manner of how he showed it or why.

[Capitalism Forever]

you make it totally subjective. I may expect to see nudity in a locker room, so seeing a sexual organ is not sexual activity, but I may not expect to see it in a different setting so then it is. It's all left up to what I expect.

Let me answer by quoting from your very next post:

A gun doesn't violate rights, waving it threatenly does. A phrase doesn't violate rights, threatening someone by use of a phrase does.

See, you have to interpret the actions of others to determine whether they are legal or not. The law has to take into account the cultural and personal contexts of those involved in the situation in order to differentiate between a phrase uttered jokingly, and one uttered as a serious threat. If the legal identification of sexual activities is "totally subjective," then so is the identification of threats.

[mrocktor]

Is the argument now that exposure (except in a urologist's office or nudist beach, presumably) is always a threat of rape? A retreat from the "perceiving a penis without consent is an act of force" thesis? Are you no longer arguing that the perception "forces" you to think thoughts you don't want to think? Or have you just found another side issue to dance around while you evade the gross error at the base of your position?

Man's rights are derived from man's nature. Man's nature requires him to be free to exercise judgment. The right to freedom is a right to act on your own choices, thus it applies only where volition is involved. You have no choice on the perceptual level - perception can never violate your right to freedom.

mrocktor

[Lathanar]

See, you have to interpret the actions of others to determine whether they are legal or not. The law has to take into account the cultural and personal contexts of those involved in the situation in order to differentiate between a phrase uttered jokingly, and one uttered as a serious threat. If the legal identification of sexual activities is "totally subjective," then so is the identification of threats.

Indentification of a threat requires you to observe the situation and then make a decision based on those observations. The simple act of perceiving does not create a violation of rights, you have to go through a thought process to determine that. If best friend says "I'll kill you" after you throw water on them and you're both laughing, it's much different than if a stranger shouts "I'll kill you" while rushing at you. Hearing the words does not make it an initiation of force, it's the context. When the law makes a determination on whether an action was a threat or not, it is supposed to figure out what the intent of the accused was, to prove he actual made a threat. The fact that the accuser interpreted it as a threat is already established.

Your position has been that just seeing, the simple act of perceiving, a sexual body part is a sexual activity, that's not subjective, simply wrong.

Why can't the perception of an existent be a sexual activity at the same time?

Several of us have gone on to show you why this can't be.

Then you go on to say that seeing a sexual body part in one situation is not sexual activity while it is at other times based solely on what a person expects to see in that situation.

I should remark that if she is wearing a bra, seeing her would not be a sexual activity, so her action would not require your consent for that reason. But, if you're in a place where people are expected to wear more than just a bra, her action would require your consent for that reason.

This is completely subjective. Your expecting the woman to be omniscient and know that you don't expect to see her bra. This is the same grounds the stupid sexual harrasment laws now use in the work place. You can hug a co-worker and she may be just fine with it, but some one observing from a distance might find that to be offensive, or in your case a 'sexual activity', and file a claim against it.

Either

1)the act of perceiving the bra is a sexual activity.

or

2)you must be able to perceive the bra, the woman, the place she's doing it, etc to set a context for you to make a decision whether it is a sexual activity or not.

Which is it. I am not agreeing with your claim that either constitutes a sexual activity, I'm just trying to point out your contradiction.

[hunterrose]

Yes, it has to do with what we've come to call "sexual integrity."

Now I've read through all the thread's posts, and I do have a question:

A christian is asked by an acquaintance whether the christian would like to participate in a lesbian orgy on the next day. Is this a violation of sexual integrity?

Given the context it [pulling out a penis] DID constitute a threat, just as pulling out a gun in public and waving it around would.

Based on what did you draw your conclusion?

I don't speak for LaszloWalrus, but the consensus seems to be that pulling out a gun in the company of others without consent or warning constitutes a threat. Some are then saying that pulling out a penis in the company of others without consent or warning does not constitute a threat. The only distinction made between the two has been that:

Unlike pulling a gun, there are alot of plausible, and even justifiable, reasons to pull out one's genitalia.

But, there are justifiable reasons to pull out a gun, too. The question is: is there a justifiable reason (that doesn't also apply to guns) to pull out one's penis without consent or warning?

[Capitalism Forever]

When the law makes a determination on whether an action was a threat or not, it is supposed to figure out what the intent of the accused was, to prove he actual made a threat. The fact that the accuser interpreted it as a threat is already established.

So you're expecting the accused to be omniscient and know that you interpreted his action as a threat? Isn't that completely subjective?

This is completely subjective. Your expecting the woman to be omniscient and know that you don't expect to see her bra.

----

Either

1)the act of perceiving the bra is a sexual activity.

or

2)you must be able to perceive the bra, the woman, the place she's doing it, etc to set a context for you to make a decision whether it is a sexual activity or not.

Perceiving a bra is never a sexual activity, period. Perceiving sexual organs may be, depending on the circumstances. In particular, if somebody suddenly exposes his sexual organ to you, then you'll perceive that as a sexual situation.

[IAmMetaphysical]

So you're expecting the accused to be omniscient and know that you interpreted his action as a threat? Isn't that completely subjective?

I doesn't matter either way. The courts would have to decide if the accused ACTUALLY made a threat whether or not the supposed victim interpretted it as such, or not.

[Capitalism Forever]

A christian is asked by an acquaintance whether the christian would like to participate in a lesbian orgy on the next day. Is this a violation of sexual integrity?

It is not. The question probably made the Christian think of damnation and hell, not of sex.

(But the purpose of rights is not to protect Christians from un-Christian things. The purpose of rights is to protect rational people form the irrational. So the question to ask is: Would a reasonable man have perceived the proposal as a sexual situation? The answer to that is still no; it was just an invitation to voluntarily enter a sexual situation.)

I don't speak for LaszloWalrus, but the consensus seems to be that pulling out a gun in the company of others without consent or warning constitutes a threat. Some are then saying that pulling out a penis in the company of others without consent or warning does not constitute a threat.

It depends. If it is accompanied by an offering facial expression and gestures, then it's just an offer, not a threat. (But, in contrast with the purely verbal invitation, the offer itself is a already sexual situation; in this case, the invitation is not to enter a sexual situation but to intensify it.) On the other hand, if it is accompanied by a resolute expression and movements towards the victim, then it is a threat.

I doesn't matter either way. The courts would have to decide if the accused ACTUALLY made a threat whether or not the supposed victim interpretted it as such, or not.

Exactly. And the same applies to sexual situations.

[mrocktor]

And the central issue remains: You do not have a right not to be in "sexual situations".

You have a right to act however you judge best when in "sexual situations". You also have a right to act to avoid said situations - by avoiding places and people where or with whom such situations are likely, by entering contractual agreements banning them from a given context, by banning them on your property.

mrocktor

[hunterrose]

The courts would have to decide if the accused ACTUALLY made a threat whether or not the supposed victim interpreted it as such, or not.

Exactly. And the same applies to sexual situations.

something everyone agrees on?

The purpose of rights is not to protect Christians from un-Christian things. The purpose of rights is to protect rational people form the irrational.

But is seeing someone's breasts irrational?

So the question to ask is: Would a reasonable man have perceived the proposal as a sexual situation? The answer to that is still no; it was just an invitation to voluntarily enter a sexual situation.

So talk (lesbian orgy) concerning sexual situations does not violate sexual integrity, but sight concerning sexual situations does?

[Lathanar]

So you're expecting the accused to be omniscient and know that you interpreted his action as a threat? Isn't that completely subjective?

No, I'm not expecting the accused to be omniscient at all, you are. Yes it's very subjective, which is the point I was trying to make.

In particular, if somebody suddenly exposes his sexual organ to you, then you'll perceive that as a sexual situation.

The somebody in your statement is the accused, the you is the accuser. The accuser is expecting the accused to know that in that circumstance that exposing a sexual organ is a sexual activity for them. It has to be shown that the accused meant it to be something, not that the accuser, the perceiver, took it that way.

Perceiving a bra is never a sexual activity, period.

You're contradicting yourself again

But, if you're in a place where people are expected to wear more than just a bra, her action would require your consent for that reason.

Perceiving sexual organs may be, depending on the circumstances.

If a body part in one situation is a sexual activity, and in another situation not a sexual activity, then the simple act of percieving it can not make it so. A can not be A over here and B over there.

[IAmMetaphysical]

But the purpose of rights is not to protect Christians from un-Christian things. The purpose of rights is to protect rational people form the irrational.

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. Rights are for the protection of FREEDOM, not from the irrational. Yes force, and the violation of freedom is irrational, but there are ways of being irrational that do not abridge the freedom of others, a freedom that includes their right to be irrational.

Quoting Ayn Rand from her essay "Man's Rights":

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences and corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action--which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fullfillment and enjoyment of his own life...

...The concept of a "right" pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice.

{Bold mine; italics hers}

Edited for typoes and to add a bold.

Edited September 28, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[JASKN]

I think there may confusion concerning the use of the word "perceive." The majority of the commenters on this thread I believe are using something similar to the following definition:

"To become aware of through the senses."

Based on this quote:

Perceiving a bra is never a sexual activity, period. Perceiving sexual organs may be, depending on the circumstances. In particular, if somebody suddenly exposes his sexual organ to you, then you'll perceive that as a sexual situation.

Capitalism Forever seems to be using a definition more like: "To see something and simultaneously pass judgement on said thing." Or he's using a mishmash of both, I can't tell.

The latter definition is incorrect, and impossible.

I also think that Capitalism Forever is confused on the role that social constructs and etiquette play in judging whether a person has threatened another. Such constructs from the accuser's point of view should never be considered when determining whether an action was threatening or not. Only intent of the accused is to be considered, and so whatever constructs he holds may or may not also be considered.

Furthermore, under no circumstances whatever can the perception of sex be considered a violation of rights unless a physical threat is also present, and then the issue is the threat, not the sex. There is no right to a "sexual integrity." Sex may be important to a person, and perhaps should be very important to all men. But observing sexuality is not harmful, and if one wishes to no longer observe such activity one has the option to go somewhere else.

I have no option concerning perception; I have endless options concerning my reaction to the perceived.

[IAmMetaphysical]

the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fullfillment and enjoyment of his own life...

I just wanted to clarify this point a bit because I see that the major confusion is over this point.

What does it mean to "act rationally" or to "take those actions which further the life of a rational being"?

The only way to act rationally is to excercise your free, uncoerced judgement. One does not act rationally if they do everything John Galt does, BECAUSE John Galt does it, or because Ayn Rand said so. Acting rationally leaves no room for following commandments. This is why the freedom to act irrational(i.e. to take actions which hinder your life) is just as important as the freedom to act to further your life, because in having the freedom to act irrationally you are being allowed to act rationally, that is, to excercise your judgement, right or wrong.

Where there is no choice, there is no morality, where there is no morality there is no way to live rationally. A being that has no choice in the actions he performs is amoral, and rightless, e.g. animals. Man by nature has choice, he has volition. Hence the only way to violate his rights is by taking away his choice, by making him act as if her were a rightless animal, which he is not. All conscious animals have perception (of some sort) so rights are obviously not tied to perception. Rights are tied to volition, which is at the base of rationality and the fundamentally human attribute: conception. Conceptual formulation is volitional, it is a result of an act of choice. The attempt the take away that choice, is the violation of a right, the violation of a rational being's right to his rationality, i.e. his conceptual autonomy.

This is the only way to violate a right, by forcing someone to act against his own judgement whether you are right or not. Acting rationally does not mean acting like John Galt, it means living like John Galt, i.e. as a volitional being, a rational being, with a free choice and control over his own mind.

[RationalBiker]

Such constructs from the accuser's point of view should never be considered when determining whether an action was threatening or not.

I disagree that this is entirely true. This means that if a person is pointing a gun at you, you must wait until he fires it before you can legitimately percieve him as a threat. Of course, another logical extension of that is even then he may not intend to actually shoot or kill you, at least according to his testimony. His perception may be that the person he's shooting at is an off-world alien sent here to destroy our planet.

One must view the actions and interpret them in the most reasonable light possible, then act accordingly. In the case of a person percieving a threat, it is almost entirely their perception that needs to be considered but with respect to how reasonable that percpetion is. If someone points a banana at you, within most normal contexts, it's not reasonable to think that the banana pointing poses a threat to you. If someone points a gun at you, it can be a quite reasonable perception that the gun pointing is posing a threat to you. It is quite reasonable to take someone's perception of another person's actions and judge their intent accordingly an it is in fact what is frequently done in court today. Do not construe my argument to be that just because the court does it, that it is right. I'm simply saying it is entirely proper for a judge or jury to consider the victim's perception when evaluating the intent of the accused's actions.

Edit - Spelling - RB

Edited September 28, 2006 by RationalBiker

[Lathanar]

The gun is a really bad analogy for this discussion. The only reason a gun was even brought up was pointing out the fact that the seeing the gun wasn't what was violating rights, it was the man waving the gun in a threatening manner. CF's arguments with sexual integrity have nothing to do with threats of physical harm to one's body, just in your having to think about something you'd rather not. He's not even talking about perceiving and interpreting someone's actions, just percieving a sexual body part is enough.

[Capitalism Forever]

Exactly. And the same applies to sexual situations.

something everyone agrees on?

Why would everyone have to agree on it? There's hardly anything everyone agrees on. Convicts will usually disagree about their punishment--does that mean they should not be punished?

But is seeing someone's breasts irrational?

No, seeing something unintentionally is not a decision you make, so it cannot be said to be either rational or irrational. And the purpose of rights is not to protect you from your irrational decisions anyway. The purpose of rights is to protect you from the irrationality of others getting in the way of your pursing your life rationally. And showing your sexual organs to a non-consenting person is irrational, and if you value your sexual integrity, it does get into the way of protecting that value.

So talk (lesbian orgy) concerning sexual situations does not violate sexual integrity, but sight concerning sexual situations does?

It's not a talk vs. sight issue. It's a communication vs. sexual situation issue. A printed advertisement saying "lesbian orgy" would still be just a form communication, but actually pulling out your sexual organ is already a sexual situation. The difference is that between a hairdresser asking "Would you like me to cut your hair short?" and actually starting to cut your hair short.

[Capitalism Forever]

The somebody in your statement is the accused, the you is the accuser. The accuser is expecting the accused to know that in that circumstance that exposing a sexual organ is a sexual activity for them.

And in the gun case, the accuser is expecting the accused to know that in that circumstance, exposing a gun is a threat for them. Threats are totally subjective, so the law should have nothing to do with them.

Which is not my opinion, of course. It's a reductio ad absurdum of your opinion. It doesn't matter what the accuser thinks, nor what the accused intends. What matters is whether a reasonable person would interpret the action as a threat in the given situation. The law should be based on that, and the only thing the accused is expected to know is what the law says.

And the same applies to sexual situations.