Consent
These thoughts on consent first took shape as thoughts on sexual consent arising from my disagreements with certain clauses in IPC Section 375. However, the rationale of my arguments were relevant to all contexts of consent. Hence, this generalised form on consent.
Consent from a minor to an adult on adult oriented issues such as sex, medical treatment, religious conversion, etc., are invalid in all circumstances.
Consent from a sane mind that was unaware of the nature of what it was giving consent to is not invalid since it is the responsibility of the consenter to conduct due diligence of what it is giving consent to and his or her cognition was sane. However, consent from an insane mind is invalid since the cognition is unaware of the nature of what it is giving consent to.
Consent from an intoxicated cognition is valid if the intoxication is administered by self or through a proxy; in either case, with the full knowledge of the substance, knowledge of what it will do to the cognition, agreement for the administration, sense of what is being consented to, and lack of duress. For ease of reference, these conditions will henceforth be referred to as "knowledgably intoxication".
The sense of what is being consensted to requires deeper analysis. Because the tipsiness or incomprehension varies from person to person as per the substance and size consumed, it is inaccurate to assume that every intoxicated mind is in such wasted state that it is unable to understand that which it is giving consent to. If the consent is a clear "yes", "I agree", let's do it" or physical advances (in case of sex), it is implicit that the cognition knows what it is giving consent to. Only in the case of a drunk wasted person who just "hmmm"s at anything asked, the consent is invalid.
If, only the state of intoxication is used to validate a consent — say that, a sexual consent from an intoxicated cognition is invalid and the ensuing act a rape, then it infers that any sexually inviting move from a "knowledgeably intoxicated" cognition towards another person is in fact an invitation to rape himself/herself; thus making that person an accomplice in one's own rape. This inference sounds stupid because it is stupid. Consent from intoxicated cognition cannot be termed as invalid because an individual has to take responsibility for the decisions taken after "knowledgable intoxicating". Consent from an intoxicated cognition is invalid only if person was wasted beyond comprehension, or was intoxicated without the person's full knowledge of the substance and consent for administration.
There is also a trend of validating consent on the basis of "manipulated mind". Every consent comes from a altered state of mind generally caused by external forces. Therefore, a manipulated cognition is just too broad and ambiguous to be used to judge consent.
Consent that the person regrets later is not an invalid consent because the decision for an action for which the consent was received, is made based on the consent at the present time; not based on what the partner feels later about the encounter.
Consent given under fear caused by any stated threat or stated duress is invalid since the threat is irrefutable. But consent given under imaginary threats, no duress and uncommunicated fear is valid for the reason that the other person is unaware of the fear. The act commences and continues under the notion that the other person is in complete agreement with it. Therefore, in the event a person perceives any threat, consent must be withheld, or given stating clearly that a threat is being perceived. Now, the other person can understand that the consent is coming from a cognition that is experiencing fear or duress; and thus act accordingly.