Disagreeing and Response to the Answer

Excerpts from the Paper

Disagreeing and Response to the Answer
I do not agree with the provided answer. While clearly the
reductionist
approach to sexual encounters has its flaws, it still provides a solid framework for discussion of sexual morality. First of all, the argument that an individual may ‘go back on their consent’ applies to every contract and consent. In terms of sexual encounter, tacitly expressed ‘NO’ represents a withdrawal from the contract at any point of the encounter. Our initial consent is for a general idea of sexual encounter. Turing the time of actual encounter the situation can change when one of the parties realizes that what he or she had in mind is different from the ideas of the other party. There is a little difference between this...

.....Since the consent is generally not tacit, or better said
werbaly
expressed, and is commonly implicit than the ‘silence’ coming from a dead body can be, under this extreme reductionism, understood as implicit consent to sexual relationship. Thus, with such arguments,
Belliotti
is actually aiming to challenge our moral ideas about sexuality. By leaving these morally questionable acts for the very end of his discussion he implies extrapolation of his arguments rather than demonstration of limits of purely
contractarian
approach to sexuality.
Works Cited
Belliotti
, Raymond. “Sexual Intercourse Between Consenting Adults is Always Permissible.” ????
O’Neill,
Onoria
. “Between Consenting Adults.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14.3 (1985): 252-257