Hello, I was reading the answer to question 726, where Jay L. Garfield discusses Andrea Dworkin's argument about whether a woman can consent to a man's sexual advances: "The person most associated with this claim was Andrea Dworkin, though she was not alone in asserting it. The claim was a bit hyperbolic, but reflected an interesting, controversial claim. Consent, she argued, presupposes rough equality. If you are a violent person holding a gun, and ask me politely for all of my money, even if you don't threaten me, my handing it over is nonconsensual. And that is the case, on this view, even if, had you not had the gun, I would have consented, out of generosity, to give you the cash you wanted. The presence of an unequal power relationship, and the background of potential violence renders consent conceptually impossible." That may be so, but consider that I am on very friendly terms with the violent person holding a gun - that is, I have a good history with her or him and that I know he or she won't be violent if I don't comply. Wouldn't consensus be conceptually possible in this scenario? By Dworkin's reasoning, we may say that children can never consent to their parents' suggestions about their lives, since children and parents differ widely in power and knowledge. However, this seems counterintuitive, for we usually don't view parents as oppressing their children. I guess, then, my question is, doesn't Dworkin's argument horribly simplify the relationship between men and women? I agree that women are subordinated, oppressed and seen as "the second sex" in most walks of life but Dworkin's argument is a biased, faulty machinery that crudely produces conclusions she likes. Best...