Sex, Lies, And Consent By Tom Dougherty - 1613 Words

In â€Å"Sex, Lies, and Consent,† Tom Dougherty argues the Lenient Thesis from the substantive account of consent. In this essay, I will discuss and explain Dougherty’s argument. Then, I will present Neil Manson s objection that Dougherty account of consent mistakenly centralizes the role of scope in determining one’s range of restrictions for consent. Finally, I will present a case that disputes Manson’s opposition to Dougherty and how Dougherty could address Manson’s charge against him. To understand how Dougherty argues his position, we first need to understand the context of the Lenient Thesis. The Lenient Thesis states that â€Å"it is only a minor wrong to deceive another person into sex by misleading her or him about certain personal†¦show more content†¦In the event where the salesmen sold her a rabid puppy, her consent would have been violated (Dougherty, 2013, p.735). When we apply this view of consent to the realm of sexual decision making, we see that many cases of deception for sex are non-consensual. Since the substantive account of consent emphasizes the importance of one determining one’s restrictions, it conflicts with the Lenient Thesis that objectively assumes that certain types of features such as religion are more critical to sexual decision making. Dougherty (2013) supports her argument with an example where Chloe deceives Victoria into having sex by lying that she shares the same love of nature, peace, and animals even though she was in the military and enjoys hunting and eating animals. The Lenient Thesis would argue that Victoria validly consented since lying about a peripheral feature would only be a minor wrong. However, the substantive view of consent would disagree because personal preferences are still considered core features that constitute when consent is violated (Dougherty, 2013, p.728). Thus, it brings a more subjective view to the table where everyone’s deal-breaker should be valued. According to Dougherty (2013), deal-breakers are strong qualities that would disqualify someone as a sexual partner. Deal-breakers vary for every individual, and it is entirely up to the individuals to decide what their deal-breakers are. To relate this concept back to theShow MoreRelatedDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 PagesBennis, a colleague of ours, half-jokingly predicted that the factory of the future would have only two employees, a person and a dog. The person would be there to feed the dog. The dog would be there to keep the person from touching the equipment! Tom Peters counseled managers that, due to the chaotic pace of change, â€Å"If you’re not confused, you’re not paying attention.† And the late Peter Drucker characterized the current environment this way: â€Å"We are in one of those great historical periods that