Here is what you're referring to.
[A
slippery slope argument (
SSA), in
logic,
critical thinking, political
rhetoric, and
caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy
[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a
chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
[2]]
The problem with you mentioning it is this. It's only a fallacy when there is no logical expectation that said small steps will lead to larger ones.
If there were no way legs touching could lead into say upshorting or upskirting then you'd be correct in mentioning it. And correct in mentioning it as a negative. Or as it were...a fallacy. Meanwhile....
(the OP seems to be thinking quite a bit about whether the other person is ok with this minimal touching)
There's a difference between thinking about consent and understanding that you shouldn't do anything sexual without a person's consent.
(Being outright physically disrespectful of another’s space (manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them) is another story.)
Actually it isn't. There's two issues at hand here. Consent and ignorance. Depending on how both are addressed we could be running directly into invasion of privacy. Ignorance meaning the other human being not having knowledge of the event and consent being that they do know and are ok with it. And again...
(These experiences are the
hottest in some ways,
as you've managed to 'persuade' someone to get touchy.)
[to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action]
Is this true though? Have they managed to persuade someone into something? Or is it that odds are much much larger that the person has yet to understand the possibility that someone else is getting off on touching them in a public place?
Lets imagine for a second that 2/3 of the world knew about this thread. That they either learned it from the news or some study or just something to that effect. Learned that people in general are getting off sexually just from touching them. Don't you think the reaction there would be disgust?
How would you that's different from upskirting, upshorting, manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them and so on? Isn't all of this across the board considered at the very least an evasion of other people's privacy? And now we've added the element of persuasion. Where one party or type of person now thinks they've somehow tricked or convinced others to do something they think is sexual in nature without this sort of thing having ever been discussed with more than just six people. Not including the amount of people who liked comments and then ignored this thread.
Right. At that point people would then be on the look out for people attempting to do this. So they won't have their privacy invaded without consent.
Ignorance.
Now back to consent.
[to give assent or approval
: agree]
Are we now about to assume without evidence that someone
NOT moving their leg in a situation like this is somehow an offer of consent? Since we're now talking about consent i feel it important to bring up other topics where consent needed to be defined. As in people being drunk.
I'm of the mind that drunk people cannot consent. That drugged people or people who are high cannot consent. And they cannot because their minds have been altered. Now, consent before getting drunk, doing drugs and so on is a different story. Still leans toward them not being able to give consent but that's again another story.
Why do i feel that way? Information. Ignorance. A person should be able to end sex at any point. Even if spoolges have already happened and it's spoon cuddle time people should be able to end it at any time.
Can someone end someone else getting their rocks off by touching their leg when they have no idea that's even a thing, weren't talked to at any point and the person who did it somehow thinks they've mind melded the person into it? No. They cannot.
There is no consent there because the other party has no idea what's even happening. So they can't consent to it. We aren't talking blowjobs in a bathroom stall in which there are signs that can be given and taken, taken and given as forms of consent. We're talking about someone tying something as normal as human beings touching each other to something sexual without their knowledge.
How could they know? And, how could they consent? If this weren't immediately taken into being of sexual nature i wouldn't have said anything. Random people cuddling or just NOT reacting negatively to someone touching them is a far leap from getting sexual pleasure from it.
So yes. This indeed a valid slippery slope issue. Because consent is important for anything of a sexual nature. Because ignorance, information and people being informed is also a very important when it comes to anything of a sexual nature. If we as human beings try to ignore either in any instance with a sexual nature it will without doubt begin to erode our definitions of those things.
Leading to less respect for each other. And more creepy people. Again, consent and ignorance. Are extremely important when it comes to these topics. Do you disagree?