11-26-2016, 03:42 AM
Now you've made the problem more difficult because consent necessarily implies free will. In a universe of just random processes subject to non-sentient matter on a subatomic level, there can be no such thing as "free will" because matter just operates based on forces enacted against it. Just as rocks fall to the ground by gravitational processes, the human brain just does whatever it does based on random electrochemical processes. Therefore, there can be no true consent whereby a person is free to choose one behavior from another behavior simply because he is subject to whatever processes his brain forces him to act.
But if we take the idea of consent up to another level, and with the assumption that the universe is not under the influence of a personal God, then we must ask why consent, itself, ought to be the determining factor for correct any behavior. Children do not consent to their parent's discipline before they are spanked, for instance, yet we all realize that the consent of the child is irrelevant for such matters. Criminals don't consent to being taken away to prison before they are arrested, either, but we recognize that their consent is moot in matters of justice.
So, philosophically speaking, you have to show objectively why consent is true, so that it can be asserted as a proper ethical standard in sexual behavior, no matter if a person accepts consent or not. And you have to apply it as that standard for these biological bags of meat and bones with electricity flowing through them known as "human beings." Otherwise, you are just being arbitrary. And if you want to be arbitrary, then someone else can come along and impose his sexual standards by rejecting consent as the precondition for acceptable sexual behavior (as do the "pedophiles running our government" towards little boys and girls).