Seasons

Bev:

Don't worry, I'm not about to slather myself with pheromones; it was the abstract ethical issue that interested me.

Let's say someone discovered that chemical X had the effect that, if someone smelled of X, others in the vicinity would be stricken with a desire so strong that it overrode any objections from the cerebral cortex (natural pheromones are presumably not this powerful). An unscrupulous person could do a great deal of damage with such a chemical. Would not its use in certain circumstances be morally equivalent to rape?

The rape part aside there is a movie (older) called Love Potioon no 9 that addressed that a bit.

Irina, such a drug, if it actually overrode the higher thinking and free will, would be a date rape drug no different than slipping things into a persons drink. How could you wear this chemical without turing your own brain to mush though?

Emm, I think I saw that. There was also a very funny Buffy episode where Xander tried a love spell that had every female in Sunnydale mad with love for him, including Buffy's mom and his teachers (Yes, I am fan girl).

Prob123, Can I have a cookie? Or do I have to blow in your ear or something?

I am sorry to everyonne, ,my keybboard is really jaacked up so bear with me.

The moment there is no consent, it is rape. Humans are more than the sum of our cerebral cortex vs the limbic system. A used car salesman may sell us a lemon, buyer beware, but he didn't steal our money. A cad that we succumb to, may be a lying jerk, but he is not a rapist. It's a case of buyer beware. That's why granny had all the old advice about not going to a man's apartment and getting drunk, about getting to know someone etc. It may have been old fashioned but it kept you safe.

Bev:

Be sure to sit down before reading further.

I think I agree with with just about everything you say!

(Does this have to do with with that powder you sprinkled on my tofu?)

I never meant that someone with diminished capacity isn't raped! They are not consenting. You have to be mentally capable of consent even to enter a contract. Age, mental abilities and sobriety would all effect the ability to consent.

So: Someone under the influence of X has diminished capacity. In what does this consist? Presumably in the failure of the critical ability, the ability to restrain one's desires on the basis of ethical or prudential considerations.

But I'm still not sure what to do about lesser doses of X. Let's say that 1 milliliter is the smallest dose at which it is absolutely inevitable that the sexual attraction will win out over all inhibiting considerations. So suppose the perpetrator P wears .99 milliliters, and let us assume that the strength of desire goes down continuously and gradually with the strength of the dose. The victim V will feel a terribly strong desire to have sex with P, but will be able, by a huge effort of will, to overcome this desire. Does this mean that V now has free will, undiminished capacity, and that therefore P is not taking advantage of V in any way?

It reminds me of a passage in the "Saint Louis Blues":

Saint Louis woman, with her diamond rings
Leads that man around, by her apron strings.
If it wasn't for powder, and for store-bought hair,
That man of mine, he wouldn't've gone nowhere, nowhere.

Human "will" can always overcome the "desire". There is no pheromone or make up that can "make" someone do any thing.