Coyne wrote:It's more fundamental than that,
More fundamental than what? I don't see any inconsistencies between the post you quoted and what you're saying now.
Coyne wrote:because certain types of power relationships aren't--can't be--fully consensual. Teacher/student, psychiatrist/patient, doctor/patient, lawyer/accused, police/citizen; all of these imply such power relationships.
Hang on. You're saying that a police officer can never have sex with someone who isn't a police officer? That sounds like a recipe for disaster, given the big gender imbalances that still exist in police forces and the fact that most people are heterosexual.
I agree that those are all examples of power relationships that can
impair consent. Andrea Dworkin has written that male/female
is another such power relationship, and I can't exactly disagree with that. To put it simply, shit's fucked.
Having a healthy relationship implies figuring out how to make sure that all participants are there willingly, free to leave if they want, and having their needs respected by the others, despite
the power imbalance that exists between any two people in our fucked-up society.
The law, on the other hand, is a very blunt instrument that can't really tell anything about how consent was negotiated. So if you want to set up a threshold of power difference above which relationships are illegal, it's just a matter of deciding where you think that threshold should be set, and what the acceptable ratio between "coercive relationships discouraged by the law" and "consensual relationships resulting in jail time" is. (Because, let's face it, lots of people will have these relationships regardless of whether they're legal.)
Coyne wrote:Trying not to be to crude, but as a brutal example suppose a police officer suggests that "he" will overlook a marijuana cigarette if the "woman" citizen consents to a sexual act. Would anyone really suggest that the woman's so-called "consent" to the sexual act is not coerced?
This example does not support your position at all: If I offer not to punch someone in exchange for them performing a sexual act, that's coercion too, and you don't need to be a police officer to do that.
Coyne wrote:Suppose just for the sake of the argument that one of the boys was gay:
What would that have to do with it? Gay people sometimes, of their own will, have sex with people of other genders. And non-gay people very often refuse sex with people of other genders. You might as well say--
Coyne wrote:Even if every boy (being boys) consented willingly,
--oh. You DID say that male people essentially will always agree to sex with female people unless they're gay. Fuck. That. Shit.
Next time, you can just say "suppose one of the boys didn't actually want it", which both makes your point more clear and avoids promoting bullshit stereotypes.