4 ms·

You do not understand the concept: I decide I want to try a bit of "something new", and I pay someone to induce a Capgras delusion in me. At which point, my wi

You do not understand the concept: I decide I want to try a bit of "something new", and I pay someone to induce a Capgras delusion in me. At which point, my wife seems like an imposter. I wish to have sex with this new person, and I am also sure my real wife has given me permission to, prior to this. You can tell me as much as you like that it's "really" my wife, but, in my delusion, I am quite sure it's just someone who looks like her, and delightfully and consentfully have sex with the imposter new person -- who is giving their consent the whole time -- with all the thrill that entails. Afterwards, the delusion wears off, and I realise it was just sex with my wife. Everyone has consented at every point to this.

regularfry 5y ago
I do understand the concept. You have not changed my understanding with this description. If I am suffering a delusion, and you know that, then you know that I am not mentally competent. You know that, if I agree to something, I do not correctly understand what I am agreeing to. Any expression of consent you extract from me is invalid.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  This seems extreme. You are consenting to be deluded, knowing everything that will come afterwards. And the consenting during as well
  - regularfry 5y ago
    But you don't know everything that will come afterwards. You know what's planned. The consent during cannot be valid. It's not informed: in fact it's specifically misled, and that is known to the other participant.
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      So you are saying there is no way for two willing, informed adults to consent to this happening?
      - regularfry 5y ago
        Yes. That is what I'm saying. If consent needs to both informed and continuous, it's not possible. It's fundamentally broken.
- peteretep 5y ago
  Yes, that’s why you’d get consent before hand
  - regularfry 5y ago
    Consent beforehand doesn't bind or imply consent during the act. If you're saying consent beforehand counts, you're saying that it's not possible for anything to happen that would cause me to change my mind if I was in a mentally competent state.

regularfry 5y ago

I do understand the concept. You have not changed my understanding with this description. If I am suffering a delusion, and you know that, then you know that I am not mentally competent. You know that, if I agree to something, I do not correctly understand what I am agreeing to. Any expression of consent you extract from me is invalid.

thatguy0900 5y ago
This seems extreme. You are consenting to be deluded, knowing everything that will come afterwards. And the consenting during as well
- regularfry 5y ago
  But you don't know everything that will come afterwards. You know what's planned. The consent during cannot be valid. It's not informed: in fact it's specifically misled, and that is known to the other participant.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    So you are saying there is no way for two willing, informed adults to consent to this happening?
    - regularfry 5y ago
      Yes. That is what I'm saying. If consent needs to both informed and continuous, it's not possible. It's fundamentally broken.
peteretep 5y ago
Yes, that’s why you’d get consent before hand
- regularfry 5y ago
  Consent beforehand doesn't bind or imply consent during the act. If you're saying consent beforehand counts, you're saying that it's not possible for anything to happen that would cause me to change my mind if I was in a mentally competent state.