Wanting to get out of a pre-existing obligation that every man has, and most don't get out of, should not qualify as lack of consent.

The obligation itself already lacks consent so anything you feel forced to do to get out of it is similarly non-consentual.

If by "similarly" you mean "equally bad at most", then I can agree with that.

But I think most people would rate non-consensual sex as significantly worse than a non-consensual day job.

So if you say the sex on camera is not consensual, you're implying a very different kind of consent violation than is actually happening.

> most people would rate non-consensual sex as significantly worse than a non-consensual day job

The argument here is non-consensual. No work is totally consensual, since you need to survive. You accept a life-long inconvenience in exchange for a beautiful house. Can we make sex consensual in exchange for a large enough inconvenience? The response lies in an experiment: Propose a menial job to prostitutes. Even at the same rate, most prefer their occupation. Therefore it’s consensual.

A funny quirk about non-consensual work is that the 1930’s ILO convention against slavery and forced work… excluded able-bodied men in age of working (article 11). Which kind of defeats the purpose of the convention.

This article was only abolished in 1957.

But compulsory military service still exists in probably half of the world countries.

What part of that isn't a lack of consent? Forced consent is not consent, their only other option was forced military service.

My position is that the requirement was humiliating (a sibling comment says this has been discontinued, which is all to the good) and there's nothing consensual about mandatory military service. This was all explained to me in a verbal conversation, so I could be wrong about this part, but homosexuals didn't have to skip their military service, however many wanted to because they would be punished if caught in the act, so to speak. That makes deciding whether or not to submit photographic evidence into a pretty hard decision, but again, the nonconsensual part is being forced to serve in the military in the first place.

I would also guess that the number of men who submitted to anal intercourse on camera with someone they wouldn't normally have sex with is approximately zero, so it qualifies as consensual in the ordinary sense. I'm not sure calling the result "amateur gay porn" is the ideal way to put it, but it is in fact all of amateur, pornographic, and gay.

The Overton window has shifted such that two adults agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera can be in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wild.

Do you think adult actors agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera, but only because they have chosen to do that for a living when other viable employment alternatives were available, is also “non-consensual”?

> in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wild.

Consensual means without coercion and being of sound mind.

Let's put it this way, do you consider a quid-pro-quo scenario where a boss will promote or give a raise to a female employee if she has sex with him "consensual?" Obviously this is arguable in both directions (as we could say that this is a contract between two adults, but then again, prostitution is illegal). What about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" The latter case is less ambiguous, but both cases would generally be considered non-consensual in Western legal systems and has been that way for quite some time. This is nothing new...

If you understand the above but fail to think "You *must* enter the military service, for 3 years, and are likely to go to combat and have a high risk of being killed or seriously injured (physically or even more likely mentally), or you can go to jail, OR put your dick in some guy's ass" I think you can understand how that constitutes significant cohesion. If you are unable to understand this, I am here to inform you that you are overfit and not robust to general problems.

> hat about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?"

Definite coercion as stated.

But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him, I consider that to be a roundabout method of quid-pro-quo prostitution. Plus embezzlement. There's no retaliation if they say no, they go home like everyone else.

And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service. The offer of an alternate option, one that very few take, is not the problem here.

> But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him

But we'd still call this coercion. The "dual" of this is "have sex with me or be fired." Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently.

> And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing the service.

There is retaliation, it's called jail.

Just because others are doing it doesn't make it any less of a coercion. This scales too.

> Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently.

To me, it matters significantly if refusing is retaliated against or is neutral.

If having sex with the boss is the difference between 0 firings and 1 firing, that's retaliation. If it's the difference between 95% fired and 100% fired, that's not retaliation.

Also we can say everyone gets the offer if that matters.

-

The other "dual" of this is a version where some employees have already been offered money for sex, but by a completely unrelated party. So if they want they can go take that offer now that they have more free time and only so much severance pay. (Also I am assuming they can get a new job easily enough; there are no destitution-based consent problems in this hypothetical.)

Does consent hinge on who is making the offer?

> There is retaliation, it's called jail.

You misunderstand me. There is no retaliation for not doing the gay sex thing. The default expectation is that you won't do it.

Retaliation for refusing to serve in the military is a different matter. And also why I think the mandatory service is where the actual consent issues are.

Am I understanding your position right? If you have 10 employees and say to 1 of them "have sex with me or you're fired" - that's coercion. If you have 10 employees and say to each of them (separately) "have sex with me or you're fired" - also coercion. If you have 10 employees and say to 5 "have sex with me or you're fired" and to the other 5 just "you're fired" - suddenly no longer coercion?

No, that's not it.

At its core, it's about whether you're trying to pressure them into sex with you.

I should have specifically said everyone gets the offer, to keep it simple. If the expectation is that basically everyone refuses, then it's not very different from walking around town and telling random people you'll hire them if they have sex with you. Which is just prostitution, not coercion.

Whether someone feels pressured is a difficult communication problem. It's hard to reduce to a simple thought experiment.

Another aspect is the prevalence of bullying against gays, once pictures are taken. If gays are sometimes killed even in France (Lyon, 2015), it’s worth wondering whether you want photos of yourself at 18, in a country that could evolve both ways for the rest of your life.

Two adults agreeing to engage in sexual activity in front of a camera, because their only other option is forced military service.

The problem is in line 1, not line 3.

There would be some serious issues with 3 if 1 was a fake threat meant to push you into 3, but it's not. The vast majority go along with 1.

I see it as rape with a implied third party threat of violence instead of a first party one.

You may feel differently if you feel that men's bodies belong to the state to be used in wars.

The violence was already there. It's not a threat to say and honestly mean "otherwise nothing changes (99% of people pick this option)".

The consent issues are all in the forced service itself, and apply to every man equally, whether or not they take the gay proof exemption.

The violence was not "already there." The violence is generated by the men who are not at risk of going to war.

There's an old saying about two people of different nationalities:

  The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders.

Leaders must convince the public that some person in a far away land hates them and is coming to kill them, because otherwise no one gives a fuck. Because frankly, no one is going to come into contact with another. Normal people are not the ones going to invade other countries and claim territory.

I meant that the violence is a combination of "already caused by the leaders" and "foregone conclusion".

If you opt not to take the gay sex exemption, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked.

> and "foregone conclusion"

I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be.

> your fate is the same as if you had never been asked.

This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. Not understanding this is probably why you're not understanding the rest. I'm not sure how you don't get it because if you're gay you're not going to military service and you're not going to jail. If you're not gay (or not faking) your choice is military service or jail. That's not "the same" no matter how you put it.

> I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be.

The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that?

> This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it.

I said if you don't take the gay option, your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else.

You're talking about taking it. Of course it's different if you take it.

> The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions.

I'm convinced of this. But this is not what you said.

In fact, that's kinda the theme of this conversation and the one you're having with others

When I said "otherwise nothing changes", what did you think I meant?

I thought it was reasonably clear I was talking about how this gay exemption plays out, not the entire world of possibilities.

And for the line that says "your fate is the same", I made that very direct and explicit and you somehow skipped half of the sentence to interpret it in an entirely different way. That one is definitely not my fault.