Tea and Consent
Thames Valley Police0 HN recommenders · 2021–2026
10.5M views · explainer · evergreen · Uploaded 2015-11-16
A short animation from Thames Valley Police that explains sexual consent by comparing it to offering someone a cup of tea.
Mostly invoked as an analogy or joke, including in discussions of opt-in consent and voluntary transactions.
58:51DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population
Gapminder Foundation
44:02Music Theory and White Supremacy
Adam Neely
46:39Don't Talk to the Police
Regent University School of Law
42:29YouTube's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.
Tom Scott
2:23:07Alain de Botton: Status Anxiety
Alain de Botton
7:22Antonin Scalia - On American Exceptionalism
AmericanRhetoric.com
1:02:38The Cardboard Box Reform - Nixon's Ghost Bill & A Crucial Flaw in Democracy
CRI
7:49America Keeps Rejecting an ID Card It Already Has
CGP Grey
4 comments from Hacker News
Terrible headline. Amazing they can do casually mention forcing medical treatment on people. What happened to consent? [VIDEO]
[VIDEO] [2:49] I agree it's not an absolute, immutable concept, but I think it's a hell of a lot clearer than "good" or "right" or "fair". What makes consent is the fact that either party can opt out at any time for any/no reason. It's consensual because we are decision-making agents, and in spite of privation we can still choose to refuse to transact. Consent is violated by force or direct threat of force, not by the circumstances the transacting parties may find themselves in. If you're very horny can you still refuse to consent to sex? If you happen to be dying of thirst and I offer you a glass of water, can you refuse? You can. Are there may reasons why you would? I don't imagine so. Does it follow there there are no circumstances under which anyone would refuse? It does not.
> anti-authoritarians are also anti-liberal The words are overloaded, but liberal and authoritarian are on opposite ends of the same axis on the political compass. Classical liberalism stands on the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics. Today these ideas are also called "libertarian" but the core desire is expressed in the Latin root word. I want to be free - as in without a master, elected or otherwise, who governs my life. > I find them overly vague I'd be glad to elaborate. I'm positing that it's more important our interactions be consensual than value-maximizing. Would you kill one unwilling person to save a million? a billion? I would not. > China has done quite well China is doing well because it is able to benefit from innovations generated outside its borders. It's not able to generate important innovations on its own. This was also the main problem in the USSR. The Soviets just didn't have as ready of access to innovations born of a liberal society. Where China does use its centralized authority, the results are often catastrophic, eg. its one-child policy or COVID response. > Liberalism also concentrates power Some parts of this paragraph are more true than others. There is nothing in classical liberal thought about eg. patent or copyright law. Also you're broadening the definition of power that I put forward: > Your freedom is a function of your relationship to those who can use legitimate force against you - of how much power is held over you Corpora
Something like "tea and consent": [VIDEO] Yeah, it ain't sex, but it does still come down to basic respect.