Self-ownership, Human Rights, and Societal Liberty or Freedoms



Humanistic Simplicity: “don’t do harm and do help.”



Hey religious people, don’t let your religious freedom become your children’s religious oppression.

The reason the scientific method assumes methodological naturalism (the assumptions that there is only natural without supernatural) is that there is no magic anything evident in reality at every level in every test ever done all over the earth from the beginning of science testing even when minds wished for magic.

A wise person can even learn from things some people think are stupid.

A stupid person cannot even learn from someone who is wise.

We who are good, shine no matter the darkness.

Dear of Seed of Hate, I no longer love you.

Where did the seeds of hate come from you may ask: well, “That is only mine”, “only they are me”, “they are only allowed there” “only they are allowed this/that” or “only I matter”, all of which have quite often sent a seed of hate in the world and we have been responding to them for years on end. Who is wrong? Once I was wrong. And then wrong again. In fact, I have been wrong all my life. One has not found truth if they believe that they are never wrong. I am sure this plague of my side bias is a fantastic way of not learning new-truth, if that matters to you? Dear thinkers welcome you’re being completely shown to be wrong, as who wants to spend another second believing a lie. You don’t honestly want to believe lies or half-truths do you?

Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all-powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self-will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice.


“Damien, you’re a psychologist, right? I want to know your honest views on incest, large age gap relationships, polygamy, polyamory, falling in love with animals, fictional characters, or physical objects (examples of pathetic fallacy), etc. which common people find unacceptable or taboo?” – Questioner
.
My response, I have a degree in psychology but stopped halfway through my masters deciding to be a full-time atheist instead. I will give you my honest opinion as I always do anyway. lol
.
My response, I agree in general that before 18 there should not be an age difference above around 3 years. but after 18 I think it is open. Incest to me is a social issue, not a relational one if the individuals are adults. I am not interested in it but as a sex thing, I have no issues if all are over 18 and give consent. If under and not more than a 3 years age difference I would think it a potential issue as there are psychological issues with crossing such boundaries which you can’t take back so it should be an adult choice not one under 18 should try to make as for an age difference whether incest or non-incest sex is statutory rape and should not occur. I think also such incest couples over 18 still should ethically consider the potential impact on children so I would advise some form of birth control unless the child can be assured to not be deformed in some way.
My response, Polygamy, polyamory or polyandry, if all involved are of adult age and free of cursive force, is cool with me, let people love how, who, and with how many they wish. Falling in love with animals? As in what, care for animals or are you asking about sex with animals? I will assume you mean people having sex with animals. I am against abuse and sex with ones who are unable to give sexual consent should not do so.
My response, People fall in love with fictional characters to me is likely Animistic influenced. People fall in love with fictional characters all the time and in many ways so I don’t know what you are asking? I will try to guess, I have a general belief that people own themselves and this includes things that they may believe. I don’t see much wrong with it unless it is very detrimental to their life (or detrmental harm in the lives of others). There is not one limited reason this loving of fiction could accrue or flourish so without knowing more detriment to their well being I would say it could be ok or a real problem. People do love many inanimate objects that are likely why Totemism emerged, we love art. 🙂

“Damien. You often use the words “me”, “my”, and “I”. Do you feel that you do most of what you do to fulfil a personal need? Whatever the need may be, as I’m not going to just assume. Or do you feel that you are an advocate for atheism as a whole?” Questioner
.
My response, I have a need to inspire deep thinking in both those who don’t think much only believe and I also wish to inspire others to find their power to challenge others so yes I have a goal to improve the world as much as can while I am here. I speak to my self as I can not talk for others not would I want to I want to help others speak for themselves.

THE SOUL OF LIBERTY: “The Universal Ethic of Freedom and Human Rights” By Fred E. Foldvary

Justice in the Workplace: morality/ethical dimensions

Axiological Dignity: “Value Consciousness vs Value-Blindness”

Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings. Utilizing Dignity? Dignity = respect?


Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?

How Do I Gain a Morality Persuasion or Make a Change to it?

T.R.U.E. “The Rational Universal Ethics”


Self-ownership: Abortion, Genital Mutilation, Prostitution, Drugs, and the Right to Die

FREEDOM in relation to group status
 
To me, there is a confusion I see some make about the ontological nature of FREEDOM in relation to group status. They think it’s like being alone uninfringed by anything or anyone allowed to do anything. But how can you profess freedom, when you are alone and completely uninvolved with others when the freedom requested, is from the group, to begin with, whether or not one realizes it. So it is wrong to think that freedom is like being alone, rather a FREEDOM of this nature is found in the status of a group or in group dynamics where one individual still holds group sanctioned autonomy thus conceding some limit to one’s freedom rights where they interact with others freedoms. To me, freedom of the social engagement variety involves the reasonable acknowledgment of behavior bubbles of freedom restraint compared to the free flow of unhindered involvement with others freedoms. Social freedom in this way involves behaving in a group setting with freedom equally, which by nature has the internal limit to one’s free choice to do something such as violate the rights of another by something like hitting them just because that is how the puncher wanted to live their freedom rights. Which I am sure most agree is a violation of the social equity of respect of the freedom and dignity of others as fellow freedom holders. To conceive of social freedom as if it is like being alone one should stop and think this would mean everyone could do as they wished which would include violating the freedom of everyone else showing social freedom must involve respecting the freedom rights of others even if to do so automatically add limits to what can be expected from one’s own limits social freedom because one has some reasonable freedom ONLY if others also respect them. Freedom of this social nature is a behavior as much as a right or status. 

I am a staunch believer in Self–ownership.

Selfownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one’s own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life.

In a general sense the concept of rights means that an individual, and by extension all people in society are justified in rejecting force agent themselves or using force to defend themselves or others in certain circumstances from human rights violations, “self-ownership violations” meaning “the individual owns themselves and thus has rights to their body and what interacts with it or how it is used (self-governed body).” This is something that very few people would dispute, and thus the concept of human rights or self-ownership basically highlights the thinking connected to ones right to life as well as how that life is used. “Self-ownership” can thus be interpreted as meaning: we have individual body sovereignty, we have moral legitimacy to our rights in our bodies and our liberty s connected to this understanding, we are the only ones who (should) have control over ourselves, we are self-ownership agents on equal standing with every other self-ownership agent in society. Therefore, “Self-ownership” is the capacity to live wholly in accordance with the full and free exercise of our private judgment about and to our body. Ref

“Self-ownership” can be thought of as a person’s self-management and can thus be interpreted as supported under: Civil liberties “sovereignty of the individual”.

Civil liberties are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation without due process. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. In America, we not only have Bill of Rights a collective name for amendments to the United States Constitution states have a constitution such as a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Likewise, there is the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Ref

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (abolished slavery and involuntary servitude) is sometimes viewed as an implementation of the concept of self-ownership, as are some portions of the Bill of Rights. Ref

“Self-ownership” can be thought of as involving a person’s bodily integrity which is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement. Ref


I will address the issues of abortion, genital mutilation, prostitution, drugs, and the right to die.

Abortion

The main argument of the anti-abortion or anti-choice movement boils down to this: a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is, therefore, murder of a human being. Anti-choicers must claim that fetuses are human beings, of course, or they really have no case against abortion. However, the stages of embryonic development: A zygote is a single-celled fertilized egg. A blastocyst is the fertilized egg after cell division. At implantation, it becomes an embryo through to the eighth week of development, and a fetus from eight weeks to birth. The common law rule is that a fetus is not considered a living human being until it has been born alive. Therefore, if a defendant kills a pregnant woman he can only be charged with one count of murder for killing the mother, but no charges can be brought against him for the death of the fetus. Some jurisdictions have moved even farther than that and have defined murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought. Notice how human being and fetus are separate? That’s because a fetus is not a person. Ref Ref I think it’s the mother’s choice to decide what she wants to do with her body grin emoticon. If she wants to keep it, let her keep it. If she wants to abort it, let her abort it. The word murder is a legal clarification on killing (someone who is a human ie born) unlawfully. I do think to terminate a pregnancy by means of a kind of killing but so is the cow, pig, and chicken I ate in the last two days. They are not murder and neither is abortion. Some say even a dead body has rights. so a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus should two, however, this is wrong and seems to misunderstands so-called rights of the dead just as they seem to confuse what or who is owed human rights as a person.

The Rights of the Dead is more accurately stated the Rights of Survivors. In general, the legal rights of the next of kin include: the right to immediately possess the remains for burial, the right to oppose disinterment, the right to oppose autopsy or organ donation, and the right to seek damages for mutilation of the body. Who counts as next of kin? As a general matter, both common law and state statutes give first preference to spouses in determining what will happen to the deceased. If there is no spouse, decision-making authority goes by the same consanguinity rules that apply to inheritance. Legal disputes have arisen where same-sex partners or unmarried lovers are excluded from these decisions.

Well, it’s not a viable being outside of the mother and as it’s not born it’s not yet actually a citizen of anything. As in if the mother travels, the baby could be born in a different state or country creating different issues.

A late termination of pregnancy often refers to an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week of gestation. The exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term, however, is not clearly defined. Premature babies born at 22 weeks are more likely to survive outside the womb than previously thought, according to new research.

And 89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC).
In 2012, 7.2% of all abortions occurred between 14-20 weeks’ gestation; 1.3% occurred ≥21 weeks’ gestation (CDC). Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” The third trimester begins at 27 to 28 weeks from conception.

So the fetus is not an aware sovereign being or citizen to suppress the rights of the who is both an aware sovereign being and a citizen with both human rights and government entitled citizen protection. Likewise, the fetus is being aborted before it can experience with the pain of death or some connected response to it. Ref

 

Genital Mutilation

I am pro-body sovereignty and rights against forced or nonconsent genital mutilation in females, males, as well as intersex persons. I am against the Genital Mutilation of All Children Girls and Boys. First for me as in all things: people own themselves, thus have all rights to their body to use as they wish. Children have the right to body sovereignty and bodily integrity rights that should not be violated, thus forced male and female circumcision is unethical. I am for the right to physical integrity. To read more on my thinking on this issue check out this link to my blog post: Against Genital Mutilation

Guns

I Am not Pro Guns or Anti guns. I am Pro Rights and Pro Safety. I am an atheist for Non-Aggression, valuing anti-violence unless the aggression or violence is for direct self-defense or other-defense. I am for Gun Rights and I am for Gun Laws. I want sensible laws for all things guns are in no way special. I would like gun laws to be like vehicle license laws, such as different classes A, B, C. And similar scaling required Personal Firearms Liability Insurance per gun and gun type owned like car insurance is for vehicles by different classes A, B, C. NRA Endorsed Personal Firearms Liability Insurance (voluntary of course for the NRA; though I think it should be mandatory)

“A” Being full auto machine guns. “B” being pistols and semiautomatics, and “C” being shotguns and hunting rifles. Just like driving licenses it should be easier to get a class “C” gun license and the hardest and have extra requirements to get a class “A” gun license just like driving licenses. And each class requires proof of training yearly registration and liability insurance for gun ownership just like vehicles. To me, the guns rights issue starts off with a confused mind about guns as I see it there is a human right to self-defense not a right to a dangerous product unencumbered any restrictions. Guns are not special, they are a product, a very dangerous product they may or may not be employed in Self-care (for food “hunting”, safety “self-defense”/other-defense” fun “target practice”). While guns don’t have a human right, there is a human right self-defense is people seem to confuse the two. Speaking of human right self-defense, I am in support of a right to reasonable safety in society (shared right to self along with other-defense) and why I support reasonable gun laws.

The NRA once supported gun control: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

Name me laws we don’t put into practice simply because some will not follow them? I’m all for sensible laws. We need sensible laws even if getting people to follow them is a problem. Just like underage drinking, we cannot stop it but we need the laws. Laws are why we even have a right to have guns in the first place. Thus, it is no strange thing a law is needed to govern them as well. Laws are what come from the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, that guarantees our basic freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, and the press etc.

Possible Gun Debate Fallacies

The gun debate needs a reason, not rhetoric and logical fallacies. There are many fallacies that occur on both sides of the gun debate, this fallacy can be especially distortive in how it affects our ability to think rationally about the issue.

Appeal to Fear- used by both sides such as saying how many more gun deaths would there be if there were no guns to protect us or we must ban all or some guns as it’s the only way to protect us.

Appeal to emotion – used by both sides such as saying if we don’t ban guns, then kids will continue to be violently and gruesomely murdered. If we don’t allow more guns everywhere, then kids will continue to be violently and gruesomely murdered.

False causality – (assume that correlation must equal causation)- used by both sides such as saying remove guns and gun violence will have to drop or allow more guns everywhere and gun violence. Another way to say this is there is no evidence that making gun laws removed gun violence or there is no evidence that open carry gun laws reduce overall gun violence. There could be places in different parts of the country where either of these claims has what looks like validating statistics. This can be a fallacy because it ignores the possibility that the two things are influenced by a third factor. This is a fallacy you should look for whenever statistics are being thrown around because as one of my old dive instructors used to say, statistics can be like bikinis: what they show is revealing, but what they hide is essential.

Slippery slope – eg. If they take away our rights to any weapon soon we won’t be able to hunt at all: This tends to be more of the pro-gun side as they are supportive of maintaining the status quo. It is not a particularly useful argument for change.

Perfect solution fallacy – We can’t strengthen firearm regulations because people will still get their dirty paws on guns. But the goal is a reduction of gun deaths. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t employ a multifaceted approach to deal with this problem.

Appeal to authority – eg. The constitution says we should have guns. This is a tricky point as the validity of the constitution as an authority is rarely questioned, yet it does not necessarily represent a valid argument. This is probably a point that will never change.

Anecdotal fallacy – eg. I know of someone who stopped a robbery with a gun. One incident can always be pointed to where a gun was useful in defense. The size of this example set is usually the point of debate. The same can be said for massacres with firearms on the other side.

My Personal Mission: I champion a value-driven life not just enlightenments by valuing people and embarking to be a friend and show friendliness as a way of inspiring change. Instead of trying to attack people personally and put others down rather than putting bad ideas down. A person wishing for a value-driven life works to inform and build others up as well as hold a willingness to listen and where we see, unrest in the world try to help to offer new thinking to bring level-headedness and peace. A person wishing for a value-driven life sees this positive thinking not just a good thing to do when convenient but see it as a way of life and compassion as a personal virtue.

The number of mass shootings in the America this year (2015) reached 294, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker. The website defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are killed or injured by gunfire. http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

We ethically must do something, as to doing nothing likely means more will suffer. I believe in reasonable anarchist gun laws?

“Damien, you say you agree with reasonable gun laws, but you say you are an anarchist. How can you have gun control without a government?” – Questioner

My response, As if “government” is the only form of governance…

“Explain to me how it works then.” – Questioner

My response, What governance?

“Controlling gun ownership without a state, how would that work.” – Questioner

My response, We the People are the management, and we should support all reasonable personal freedom but still have laws we directly vote on like free People. Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly. Guns are not some human right it’s a dangerous product and like all hazardous products need reasonable regulations just as bomb-making.

“Who enforces the regulations?” – Questioner

My response, I hope you don’ wrongly think I am anti-society. No, I am for ethical Governance, I just oppose the abusive hierarchal governments and one over many rules removing our rights then only giving them back in small peaces and demanding we thank and praise them, some almost as if gods but I am not so fooled, as to me much of what we have now is similar such as fire departments and all other reasonable services we as a community pay for in taxes. I am not against reasonable taxes for desirable social services. From “Big Government” to “Big Governance”?

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199560530-e-1

Gods (Religious Freedom)

Prostitution

I am for legal non forced consensual prostitution (for adults with adults). First for me as in all things: people own themselves, thus have all rights to their body to use as they wish. Also if prostitution were legalized, then it can also be regulated and made more safe. Applicable and newly created laws would make it safer and more healthy for both workers and clients. Prostitution is never going to go away, but we can make it safer for everyone involved.

In 1949, the United Nations adopted a resolution in favor of the decriminalization of prostitution, which has been ratified by fifty countries. The National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that over one million people in the US have worked as prostitutes. Estimates in some larger cities found that 20-30% of prostitutes are male. One report cites 60% of the abuse against street prostitutes perpetrated by clients, 20% by police, and 20% in domestic relationships.

In a study in London, 50% of clients were married or cohabiting. 70% of adult men have engaged in prostitution at least once. Average prostitution arrests include 70% females, 20% males and 10% customers. 85-90% of those arrested work on the street. Prostitution in the US is a 14.5 billion dollar a year business. Cities spend an average of 7.5 million dollars on prostitution control every year, ranging from 1 million dollars to 23 million dollars. Ref

Advocates for sex workers strongly back the idea. A petition in support of such a policy has garnered more than 6,000 signatures, including dozens from sex worker support and advocacy groups in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and Latin America. The proposal has also received harsh criticism from anti-trafficking activists as well as from celebrities like Anne Hathaway, Lena Dunham and Kate Winslet. Ref

Amnesty International now joins the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, the World Health Organization and other global groups that argue the best way to protect the safety of people who sell sex is to legalize the industry. Ref

Some say but prostitution is only a result of economic necessity.

This claim that the only reason for prostitution is a result of economic necessity, well that if true would not make it different than all work as all work is an economic necessity, well I guess you could say unless there was something like a basic income. But even where there is a basic income we still see prostitution. Such as in Denmark where their ambassador once said, “while it is difficult to become very rich in Denmark no one is allowed to be poor. The minimum wage in Denmark is about twice that of the United States and people who are totally out of the labor market or unable to care for themselves have a basic income guarantee of about $100 per day.” And yet prostitution still happens in Denmark. But since sex work is not recognized as a lawful profession, sex workers are not entitled to the protection of employment laws or unemployment benefits, but are still required to pay tax. Ref

So let’s look at the research not believed claims.

Half of the prostitutes in a new survey say they became prostitutes because of sexual curiosity, and 68 percent consider their line of work as part of their sexuality.

“While there’s no doubt that money is the primary reason for the women becoming prostitutes, it is very surprising that sexual motivation ranks so highly,” says Jens Kofod, who holds a PhD in anthropology and is a researcher at SFI – The Danish National Centre for Social Research. Ref

Again, I am only for non-forced consensual prostitution (for adults with adults), that said I want to make it clear no one is obligated to give or engage in sex, not even in a relationship or marriage; but this includes the thinking behind the term ”friendzone.” To me the idea of ”friendzone” is or may be connected to some odd belief that people mostly women have an obligation to offer sex in return for friendly actions or thoughts. To such thinking I wish to remind people that NO one is required to be sexual with anyone regardless of how nice you are, how close you are as friends, on a date, or if you’re romantically together, etc. I always strive to respect the body ownership of others including their right to use sexual consent when, how and with whom they wish and there is no external entitlement nor obligation owed or owned by anyone else then the person themselves.

Drugs

I am for eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use. First for me as in all things: people own themselves, thus have all rights to their body to use as they wish.

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade. Ref

10 Reasons to legalise all drugs

1 Address the real issues
2 Eliminate the criminal market place
3 Massively reduce crime
4 Drug users are a majority
5 Provide access to truthful information and education
6 Make all drug use safer
7 Restore our rights and responsibilities
8 Race and Drugs
9 Global Implications
10 Prohibition doesn’t work

To read the details for the ten reasons click the link: http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

The Right to Die

I am for the right to die, supporting ‘rational suicide’ assisted voluntary euthanasia. First for me as in all things: people own themselves, thus have all rights to their body to use as they wish.

The right to die is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being is entitled to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to decline life-prolonging treatment, where a disease would otherwise prolong their suffering to an identical result. The question of who, if anyone, should be empowered to make these decisions is often central to the debate.

Proponents typically associate the right to die with the idea that one’s body and one’s life are one’s own, to dispose of as one sees fit. However, a legitimate state interest in preventing irrational suicides is sometimes argued. Pilpel and Amsel write, “Contemporary proponents of ‘rational suicide’ or the ‘right to die’ usually demand by ‘rationality’ that the decision to kill oneself be both the autonomous choice of the agent (i.e., not due to the physician or the family pressuring them to ‘do the right thing’ and commit suicide). Ref

Sexual Consent

Consent is defined as permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. And synonyms Consent: agreement, assent, acceptance, approval, authorization, permission; informal: go-ahead, thumbs up, green light, OK.

Body Ownership or Self-Ownership (self-rights to your body or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) and similar to Property of or in the Person.

A mother I know had the conversation with her son after me and she talked about self-ownership and consent and she said it went very well. She told me she would be talking to her 8-year-old son and it will be a lesson in consent. She said she was going to use hugs as an example for consent. She planned to tell him that not everyone wants to be hugged, so it’s a good idea to make sure it’s ok. Someone may have been ok with you hugging them yesterday, but doesn’t want you to hug them today. THAT’S OK! It’s THEIR BODY! Also, if someone hugs a lot of people, they are NOT obligated to hug everyone. That is also ok. If you ask someone if it’s ok to hug them and if they say I don’t know, treat that as a no. They may be worried about what you think if they say no. It’s about respect people’s rights to their bodies. Touch is a personal matter and shouldn’t be taken personally. Not wanting to be hugged doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t like you and don’t want to be your friend. And don’t forget, you have all these same rights to your body as well. She wanted to keep this discussion gender neutral as rape isn’t only a problem being faced by women. She was hoping this conversation paves the way for a few years down the road when it’s about sex. This is our contribution to a better future by raising one more person to not have any grey area on consent.

After talking to me she had a talk with her son. She combined my examples of explaining consent with hers and thus used the words consent and body ownership when she spoke with him. through body or self-ownership like home ownership; even if you have been to someone’s house 100 times you still have to knock on the door and wait for them to let you in if they wish (give consent to come inside) and you are allowed in with a tentative consent as likely you are not able to just move in without further consent and even then it’s a limited consent and likely comes with some of limits rooms or spaces not a universal consent. She added my explanation with hers and used the words consent and body ownership when she spoke with him. As I advised, she didn’t use any language that indicated the discussion applying to one gender over another. At the end, I asked him if he had any questions. He said no. So she gave a few scenarios and asked what he should do or if what an occurred in each scenario was ok. He did very well. She said she was glad she engaged him further in the discussion even after he said he had no questions. It was a great way for her to gauge his comprehension.

Why she felt a need to talk to him was in light of the recent controversy about the swimmer who raped the unconscious woman, and most especially there are some people victim blaming. And there have been a lot of eye-rolls when people say things like instead of blaming the victim for what she was wearing/saying/doing/alcohol consumption, how about we just teach boys not to rape. Well, what happened was a matter of first-order moral principles violation of “Consent” in general and disrespect for “Body Ownership” of the unconscious woman and specifically Sexual Ethics violation rape sex without consent or against consent.

She told me what she wants is for this message to get out to parents. What would be really cool is after putting the piece out there, we could post it again no less than a month later, but with the addition of people’s success stories and updates on how my son has applied the concept to his behavior and interactions with others, possibly even share it in discussions he has with other kids. She also is hoping it helps people to understand that children can be taught this easily and comfortably. She told me home a family of allies: supporting equal civil rights, gender equality, LGBT social movements, and challenging homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, and intersexphobia. She had provisory talked to him about never bullying and standing up for others being bullied. He told her his teacher last year said that two men or two women can’t get married. My friend was pissed because it was the previous summer when two men or two women getting married became legal in all 50 states. Not to mention it was a hateful seed to plant in the minds of 1st graders! So my friend used it as an opportunity to teach her son that just because someone is in a position of power, doesn’t mean they are always right. If something strikes you as wrong, then it probably is, so it’s ok to question it. I agreed authority is a position, not a universal fact, it must be justified and just. I told her she is doing great and is an amazing mother, we need more people like her. Having some concern to discourage her son from being a class disruption she told him that for now, he needs to talk about it with her first. If they together think his teacher is ever wrong, then we can talk with them together.

All unconsent especially violations to sexual consent should not only be criticize we should teach consent thus to me we also should teach Body Ownership or Self-Ownership (self-rights to your body or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy).

—-Teaching consent, well there is formal and informal consent.

*What is formal consent?

Formal consent or Informed Consent is the requirement of informed consent in professional practice, the doctrine of informed consent rose to dominance during the course of the 20th century. Informed consent is shorthand for informed, voluntary, and decisionally-capacitated consent. It replaced a medical ethos founded on trust in physicians’ decisions—often on the assumption that “doctor knows best”—with an ethos that sought to put patients in charge of their own care. In English, “consent” has several meanings but in the relevant sense, consent transactions have a distinct structure: person A consents to B’s engagement for a time on A’s body or owned self, under a certain description of A’s body or owned self, whether or not the offer was initiated by B. For example, a person “A” may consent to a physician “B” touching their genitals as part of a physical exam, but this limited consent is not and cannot be thought to as universal entitled consent such as if consent is given for a breast exam this not a free-for-all consent to then touch the woman’s vagina or rectum. Just like if consent is given for a tactical exam this not a free-for-all consent to then touch the man’s penis or rectum. Unconsented touch is bodily trespass an action that in itself is wrongful in respect of its being a violation of autonomy of another and that the class of such actions violates Body Ownership or Self-Ownership and the right to consent that comes with them. There must be a better understanding of how we all own our own bodies and how we are the only sovereign owner to allow consent personal autonomy.

*What is in formal consent?

Consent is an agreement between participants to usually to engage in sexual activity sometimes in close romantic relationships there is what is called “presumed consent” though this is only tentative by an agreed loose consent dependent on the people, place and time, etc. There are many ways to give consent, and consent doesn’t have to be verbal, but verbally agreeing to different sexual activities can help both you and your partner respect each other’s boundaries. Consent in sexual interactions have a distinct structure: person A consents to B’s engagement for a time on A’s body or owned self, under a certain description of A’s body or owned self, whether or not the offer was initiated by B. For example, a person “A” may consent to kissing “B” but this is not a free-for-all consent allowing touching her genitals as the consent is for kissing and while some mistake this as a universal sexual consent, this is a limited consent and cannot be thought to as universal entitled consent as in you must ask if your partner is in the mood for sex, one should ask for and be given consent each and every time sex is desired, unless given consent otherwise. As people own themselves, thus have all rights to their body to use as they wish. Moreover, this sexual consent is not a universal ok for any and all in any way sexual consent unless stated so, such as if consent is given for a breast exam this, not a free-for-all consent to then touch the woman’s vagina or rectum. Just like if consent is given for a tactical exam this not a free-for-all consent to then touch the man’s penis or rectum. I wish to remind people that NO one is required to be sexual with anyone regardless of how nice you are, how close you are as friends, on a date, or if you’re romantically together, etc. I always strive to respect the body ownership of others including their right to use sexual consent when, how and with whom they wish and there is no external entitlement nor obligation owed or owned by anyone else than the person themselves.

—–Teaching Body Ownership or Self-Ownership

*What is Self-Ownership?

Self–ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one’s own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. In a general sense the concept of rights means that an individual, and by extension all people in society are justified in rejecting force agent themselves or using force to defend themselves or others in certain circumstances from human rights violations, “self-ownership violations” meaning “the individual owns themselves and thus has rights to their body and what interacts with it or how it is use (self-governed body).” This is something that very few people would dispute, and thus the concept of human rights or self-ownership basically highlights the thinking connected to ones right to life as well as how that life is used. “Self-ownership” can thus be interpreted as meaning: we have individual body sovereignty, we have moral legitimacy to our rights in our bodies and our liberty s connected to this understanding, we are the only ones who (should) have control over ourselves, we are self-ownership agents on equal standing with every other self-ownership agent in society. Therefore, “Self-ownership” is the capacity to live wholly in accordance with the full and free exercise of our private judgment about and to our body. Ref

“Self-ownership” can be thought of as a person’s self-management and can thus be interpreted as supported under: Civil liberties “sovereignty of the individual”.

Civil liberties are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation without due process. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from torture, freedom from forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. In America, we not only have Bill of Rights a collective name for amendments to the United States Constitution states have a constitution such as a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Likewise, there is the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (abolished slavery and involuntary servitude) is sometimes viewed as an implementation of the concept of self-ownership, as are some portions of the Bill of Rights. “Self-ownership” can be thought of as involving a person’s bodily integrity which is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement.

For more reading check out the following links:

Teaching Consent Without Sex: http://www.wcsap.org/teaching-consent-without-sex

We Can Teach Kids About Consent Without Bringing Sex into the Conversation: https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/09/can-teach-kids-consent-without-bringing-sex-conversation/

This Is How You Teach Kids About Consent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/this-is-how-you-teach-kids-about-consent_b_10360296.html

Healthy Sex Talk Teaching Kids Consent, Ages 1-21: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/03/teaching-kids-consent-ages-1-21/

Sex Ed Lesson ‘Yes Means Yes,’ but It’s Tricky:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/us/california-high-schools-sexual-consent-classes.html?_r=0

What If We Treated All Consent Like Society Treats Sexual Consent:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/how-society-treats-consent/

Self-ownership: Abortion, Genital Mutilation, Prostitution, Drugs, and the Right to Die: http://damienmarieathope.com/2016/02/28/self-ownership-abortion-genital-mutilation-prostitution-drugs-and-the-right-to-die/

References

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/informed-consent/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27650673_Self-Ownership_and_Property_in_the_Person_Democratization_and_a_Tale_of_Two_Concepts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity