>>44880070Rephrasing intelligence as sapience is just moving the shells around. You are still targeting an arbitrary quantity which we actually have no way to measure.
It seems we're mostly on the same page with the others. I agree on requiring physical and mental maturity. I actually thought it said that for years. Sorta feeling a Mandella effect over it, but I guess I always just interpreted it the way I wanted to.
>Be as specific as you can with this.I can't. Consent is vague. Humans are complex enough to do stuff like play act a rape for fun, or do bdsm. The dynamics there are complex, but my rule is followed in those fetish communities even though they may not know it. They'll choke and whip someone, knowing it's not doing any real harm and their partner is getting gratification. That's what's important. That's always what's important, and nothing else really is. Sex should be mutually enjoyable and without serious negative consequence.
The lesser the capabilities of your partner, the less you can do with them. You can't do bdsm without some advanced "do you really know what you're getting into" communication. You can do vanilla sex even with a literal retard though. If you're looking out for them, you think they'll be okay with it, and you both have fun, then what's the harm?
My rule is designed to give leeway where you need it without compromising on protection against harm. You must act in good faith, meaning you can't play games with someone to coerce their engagement, and you can't hide important information from yourself to dodge the second clause. You must hold the wellbeing of your partner forefront, meaning you cannot do anything which you know would actually hurt them physically or psychologically. Ignorance here is no excuse. That means a pedo who refuses to believe that molesting kids has a huge rate of long term psychological damage is still violating the wellbeing clause. Self delusion here could also violate the good faith clause
