Sex

Can Someone Just Invent an 'I Consent to Sex' iPhone App Already?

Consensual sex? There's an app for that. One day soon. Hopefully.

|

Consent
Zenon Evans / Reason

Over at Slate, Amanda Hess came to the defense of legislation—currently under consideration by the California State Assembly—that would pressure colleges to police their students' sexual activities.

California Senate Bill 967 would force state universities to strictly define consensual sex between students as an "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision." It would also clarify that "lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent," and that the person "initiating the sexual activity" is responsible for obtaining consent.

This legislatively-enforced definition of consent is much needed, wrote Hess:

This standard improves on the old "no means no" model in a number of ways. A partner who is asleep or passed out can't say "no." Neither can a partner who's frozen in shock or fear when an encounter escalates into an assault. Victims who are threatened with sexual assault aren't always equipped to respond in rape prevention talking points. Just like with any other violent physical assault, many victims respond by shutting down, going silent, or laying motionless, hoping not to anger their attackers further, or disassociating from the attacks as an attempt at self-preservation. Also, consenting to sex one time doesn't mean consenting to sex any other time. And consenting to one act (like vaginal intercourse) doesn't imply consent for all other acts (like anal sex). Having sex with a person who is lying limply on a bed is not consensual, unless that person happens to be really, really into that—but that's a situation that requires a conversation, not an assumption.

So are affirmative consent laws a good idea? If they are broad enough to include nonverbal cues, I think so. If we can admit that enthusiastic consent is often communicated in body language or knowing looks, then we must also accept that the lack of consent doesn't always manifest itself in a shouted "no" or "stop," either. It shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the uninterested party to speak up during a sexual encounter. If you think it's easy for a person to just say no, then why would it be so hard for his or her partner to just ask?

My only substantial quibble with this definition is the "person initiating" clause. Is it always so clear that one person is initiating sex with another? Isn't the decision to have sex sometimes mutually arrived at by both parties?

Setting that aside, maybe it's a good idea for the California legislature to broaden the parameters of sexual assault. Maybe "only yes means yes" is a better standard than "no means no," and it is desirable for cultural attitudes about consensual sex to shift in that direction.

But why on earth should that involve universities? Rape is a crime, not an academic offense. I'm open to the argument that the criminal justice system should navigate sexual assault cases differently, but I don't accept that there should be some extralegal method of punishing accused rapists where the burden of proof is lower, due process is nonexistent, and he said/she said is often an automatic loss for the accused. The punishments are not as severe as they are under the normal justice system, sure, but expulsion is still a harsh sentence (synonymous with the loss of thousands of dollars toward a now unobtainable degree), given the conviction process is handled by people totally unequipped to fairly judge such matters.

The legislature is telling state universities to more aggressively involve themselves in their students' sex lives. Given administrators' track records, there is little reason to think that either victims or the accused will be well served by such mandate.

Ultimately, I'm counting on the free market to work its magic and provide a sensible and convenient method of demonstrating mutual consent. Several writers have suggested an iPhone app that allows users to clearly consent to sex—maybe they would have to input a password and then touch phones, or something?—would do the trick.

Consensual sex? There's an app for that. One day soon. Hopefully.

NEXT: The High Cost of Cheap Health Insurance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just curious. Does this apply to married persons as well as singles? I was married during the last 3 years of college and I’m sure I never had to be more direct than “Hey, Babe, we’ve got an extra 15 minutes…Want to take a “nap”?” OK, 5 minutes.

    1. A marriage license isn’t a rape license, pal!

      1. Boy is that the truth!

        1. Blue balls must be really blue up there in the frozen north.

          1. As blue as the eyes of a White Walker even!

            1. Is “White Walker” just a euphemism for Canadian immigrants to the US border states that have had their visas expire? And in fact, isn’t the entire series based on Ameri-Canucki territorial disputes and the abject failure of NAFTA to placate the northern horde?

          2. Cobalt.

  2. Several writers have suggested an iPhone app that allows users to clearly consent to sex?maybe they would have to input a password and then touch phones, or something??would do the trick.

    If that becomes common due to legal pressure, then I just have to weep for humanity.

    Because nothing captures the beauty and intimacy of sex like having to ask Siri to record your verbal consent!

    Imagine if it gets to the point where all sex that isn’t recorded with a verbal consent is determined to be proof of rape.

    1. Everything that is not expressly permitted is prohibited. You got a problem with that, horndog?

    2. Your honor, I cannot provide the verbal consent recording you asked for because my hard drive crashed and wiped out all verbal consents except those between myself and my hand.

      1. That only works for those who are appointed by the current administration to a cushy job in a totally unnecessary, wasteful, and unaccountable bureaucracy.

  3. Angry Birds: Consent Edition

    Batter down the walls of her resolve (figuratively, gents!) in the latest app in the worldwide hit franchise based on The Roman de la Rose.

  4. maybe they would have to input a password and then touch phones, or something??would do the trick.

    Bump‘s latest offering: Bump-n-Grind

    Bump-n-Grind sends consent information. Before activating the transfer, each user confirms what activities he or she wants to participate in and sends that list to the other user. A list of mutually agreeable activities is displayed on both phones. To initiate a transfer, two people physically bump their phones together.

    1. Bump-n-Grind before bumpin’ uglies.

    2. “I was thinking we could do it the old fashioned way.”

      “You mean…fluid transfer?”

      1. Dammit, I was hoping I’d be the only one to remember that shitty Sly Stallone flick

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80UQWWUIYs

        1. SHITTY! It’s the equivalent of looking through a crystal ball. LITERALLY everything in it has come true.

  5. Consensual sex must involve a third party witness of unimpeachable character. Also, if at any time the member withdraws from full penetration, consent must be explicitly reaffirmed before penetration can resume.

    1. Well, somebody has to operate the video camera. He or she can also act as a witness to the proceedings.

  6. Why would this matter? Since consent can be withdrawn at any time in the future, all sex is rape, as soon as the woman decides that it is.

    Won’t it be a lovely world when you get arrested for raping someone 30 years ago that you don’t even remember having sex with.

    Forward, proggie soldiers, forward into utopia!

    1. “you don’t even remember having sex with.”

      Or actually didn’t have sex with. Since the woman’s word is law concerning consent, what makes you think it wouldn’t be the same when it comes to whether the sex happened or not?

      1. That seems to already be the case WRT child support. You owe it even if the DNA says the kid isn’t yours.

  7. I think the more important thing to note, is how would this law change any thing at all? Changing what constitutes consent does absolutely nothing to alter the he said/she said problem involved in rape accusations, right?

    Now:

    “She consented!”
    “No, I didn’t, it was rape!”

    Under California Senate Bill 967:

    “She gave verbal and/or non-verbal cues indicating consent!”
    “No, I didn’t, it was rape!”

    The only difference I could possibly see it making is possibly providing a clearer guideline when there’s audio or video recording of the sex, but how often does that actually happen?

    1. “She was coerced into consenting before the recording began.”

    2. “I was consenting as a defensive measure. It wasn’t real consent.”

    3. In pornos?

    4. I’m wondering when they will stop dancing around the issue and directly go after the not guilty until proven guilty principle and alter the burden of proof.

      Logically, if rape is an epidemic in society and it is the worst crime imaginable, then we shouldn’t let antiquated legal customs produced by rape culture continue.

      1. How about “Guilty when she says so”? That’s where this is eventually going to go. Those six thousand dollar life-like dolls are looking better by the day!

      2. They have wanted to do away with that for a long time, at least as concerns rape and domestic abuse. And they weren’t shy about saying so.

        1. They have wanted to do away with that for a long time, at least as concerns rape and domestic abuse. And they weren’t shy about saying so.

          Are there any quotes?

      3. They’ve pretty much already done this. As a criminal defense attorney I’ve seen it first hand. Whether it’s that they’ve eliminated prompt reporting as a jury instruction, allow cases well beyond any normal statute of limitations to proceed, rape shield laws to protect the alleged victim but no such law to protect the alleged perpetrator’s sexual history, or the fact that taking the stand opens up the defendant to questions regarding his criminal history (while still being unable to impeach the alleged victim regarding same) we’re there already.

  8. Welcome to the regulation and bureaucratization of every single fucking thing in our lives, folks. Special interests (rape-obsessed feminists) scream loud enough to get the attention of the control freaks in the government. They appease the shrieking special interest scum and increase the amount of control they have. The shrieking special interests are happy, the politicians are happy. The rest of us get fucked.

    1. The rest of us get fucked.

      Which I gave no verbal consent to, I might add…

      1. Your consent doesn’t matter. This is the government, where “no” means “fuck you that’s why”. As does “yes”.

        1. “‘Fuck you’ is the magic word.”

      2. You gave consent by signing the social contract, which you signed by being born.

        It is known!

    2. “The rest of us get fucked”
      Actually, no, we don’t. That’s kind of the bottom line of all this.

    3. But will it be consensual?

      1. god I suck

        1. Is that a statement of consent for an intimate activity?

    4. The shrieking special interests are happy

      They’ll never be happy.

  9. You know, shrieking harpies wonder why men don’t want to have sex with them, let alone commit to anything. And they think insanity like this is going to fix that?

  10. The endgame for this trend is going to be hilarious.

    The very movement that pushed sexual liberation is now setting up incentives in such a way that males will want to screen their partners thoroughly, lest they find themselves wrongfully accused.

    Keep this up long enough, and men will be asking for engagement rings before having sex.

    1. “Rent Cherry 2000” for a hilarious scene based on this very idea. People go to pickup bars, but have to hire lawyers to draw up the consent contracts. Also – for Melanie Griffith before she ruined herself.

    2. One of the most fascinating things about all the things progressives and their fellow travelers want is that they inevitably end up producing the exact opposite outcome that they claimed to want. It’s uncanny how it works out that way every single time. Who could have imagined trying to change human nature would fail miserably? Who, I ask?

      1. t’s uncanny how it works out that way every single time

        When you take into account how retarded progressives are as a whole, it’s really not very uncanny.

      2. I have to wonder how much of this is being pushed by dry-humpers vs. shrieking victimology harpies?

        I knew a couple granola crunchers in college who wanted nothing to do with penetrative sex.

    3. Keep this up long enough, and men will be asking for engagement rings saving up their money to order that sexbot 3000 before having sex

      FIFY

      1. If I were 21 today I already would be.

    4. “Keep this up long enough, and men will be asking for engagement rings before having sex.”

      Yeah, have the feminists *really* thought this through?

    5. Progressives tear down institutions and societal standards that stand in the way of what they want at the moment. Progressives discover that there are unintended consequences to what they want. Progressives attempt to pass laws to substitute for the institutions and mores they tore down but require people to actin absurd and inhuman ways.

    6. No, it doesn’t end with men demanding rings.

      It ends with the removal of women’s rights.

      Women seem to have forgotten that men allow them to play at being ‘equal’.

      Men allowed women to vote. It is men that chase the rapists, men that punish them. It is men that enforce female equality.

      Eventually that may become too much of a bother.

      1. The tide has turned, sir. You will be castrated so your aggression cannot spread.

  11. There’s already an app for consensual sex: Craigslist. Boom!
    I downloaded an app for it and it’s icon shows up as CLapp… can’t make this stuff up.

    1. If you’re gay, maybe. But are there any real women on the Craigslist sex personals?

      1. Not sure, but highly doubt it. If there are, they probably be desperate.

      2. But are there any real women on the Craigslist sex personals?

        No. Craigslist is the glory hole of the Internet.

      3. Surely there are female prostitutes on Craigslist.

        1. What does female even mean when we are supposed to accept that anyone with a penis and XY chromosomes that calls themselves female is a female?

          We are falling down a rabbit hole and the rabbit thinks we are a bigot because we refuse to have sex with him.

          1. He was shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that his lady prostitute was born a man, he said after police told him to please take the nice lady’s 7.5″ and girthy cock out of his mouth.

            1. I just believe in truth-in-advertising.

              1. CL personals serve two possible functions:

                1) giving someone access to exactly what they do want while allowing them to delude themselves into thinking they’re getting what they think society thinks they should want (as in the example of the cock sucker who is surprised she’s really a he).

                2) Casting the widest net possible for slutty/piggy sexual encounters with total strangers who may or may not be on drugs, but are most likely looking to “ski,” “have a cloudy day,” or “spend time with Tina.”

                Everyone else just hits up Grinder or ManHunt.

                1. I know it’s a controversial position in some circles, but I’m of the belief that if you have sex with other guys, considering yourself straight is a pretty serious delusion. Sort of like Warty describing himself as a twink.

                  1. I think that is becoming increasingly untrue as the stigma about gay sex diminishes. Younger kids seem much more comfortable being bi and that being normal. I think there are firmer preferences one way or another, but am with Bentham on the idea that being on the defensive about it makes people fortify themselves in a position where it becomes and identity rather than a preference.

                    1. “Spend time with Tina” is apparently so offensive it isn’t even in Urban Dictionary. I tip my cap to you, good sir.

                    2. Tina

                      Crystal-Christina-Tina-T

                      You’ll see the letter T capitalized randomly all over CL and it’s an indication of interest in meth.

                    3. I’m glad I’m not the only one who was intrigued by “spend time with Tina” and still remains clueless what it means.

                    4. A few friends in college printed and posted “Best Of” of CL back in the day (early 2000s). It’s interesting how coding for drug use and prostitution has changed over the years.

                      For a good while people would talk of a number of roses to indicate how much they were selling services for, then it was predominately “gas money” and now it’s some misspelling of “generous.”

                      The change in drug terms has been similar loTs of random leTter Ts and references to snow or clouds to indicate meth. “Tina” is very 2010.

                      420 is always a popular reference to pot.

                    5. Does not that undermine the gay rights argument that orientation is an immutable condition?

                    6. It absolutely does.

                  2. I know it’s a controversial position in some circles, but I’m of the belief that if you have sex with other guys, considering yourself straight is a pretty serious delusion.

                    I mean, it’s tautological that a man who likes having sex with men is not straight (though he might not be gay).

                    1. It’s a sliding scale.

          2. Okay, so let’s artificially inflate the minimum wage so high as to make robot replacements an economically viable option. Next, let’s make sex with women so dangerous for men, that robot replacements for sex become the only viable option for heterosexual men.

            Must be the robot lobby at work.

            1. What they’re incentivizing is the sex tourism industry.

              1. The Japanese are ahead in the sexbot industry, true.

        2. Mostly cops posing as hookers.

          Eros.com is where it’s at now.

      4. No, CL is where “straight” guys go to have sex with other men, who also happen to be straight, but enjoy having sex with other men. You know, like when your girlfriend is out of town, or she gives terrible head, or you’ve just had a big fight, but you really like women and just need a quality blowjob. You rarely do this. Have pussy porn playing in the background, just make sure that pussy is full of dick… the bigger, the better.

        1. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this, jesse. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? I find your ideas intriguing.

          1. Everybody needs a hobby. Derpetologist has his derp, Coeus has his feminists and I have Craigslist’s Casual Encounters and Men-Seeking-Men sections.

            It’s a delightful combination of insane text and relatively nice cock shots.

            1. But isn’t a gay guy pretending to be straight to pick up other gay guys who are also pretending to be straight a kink sub-culture. I mean, aren’t most of them in on the role they are supposed to play, kind of like how you are supposed to believe your wife when she says she you can choose A or B without any consequences because she just wants you to be happy?

              1. Some are, some legitimately believe they’re straight and really really aren’t, some are mostly straight but occasionally like to mix it up with some cock.

                I have no idea what the ratios there are though. I’ve been picked up by “straight” guys at “straight” bars before and there’s a whole elaborate dance that ends with us having awkward sex because they have no idea how to directly communicate what they want without admitting they’re looking for gay sex.

            2. I thought your hobby was dressing up like Sailor Moon and going to Korean bathhouses.

              1. Say the guy who got his tiny cock stuck in a Pok? Ball.

  12. “Rape is a crime, not an academic offense. I’m open to the argument that the criminal justice system should navigate sexual assault cases differently, but I don’t accept that there should be some extralegal method of punishing accused rapists where the burden of proof is lower, due process is nonexistent, and he said/she said is often an automatic loss for the accused. ”

    This just doesn’t make sense. Workplaces that suspect their customers, contractees or employees of crimes in the workplace sever relationships with those people with little or no ‘due process’ all the time. If there is not a contractual obligation to give such process then at the most you have a silly policy, but no one’s rights have been violated.

    1. True, but this is about the State of California pressuring public and private entities to institute that silly policy. Does that not count as a rights violation?

      1. I agree the pushing of the state, and the federal government which is involved in this at the national level, are flatly wrong, and the policies are silly and immoral ones to have.

        But an institution having whatever process they want to sever ties with a customer or employee, as long as constitutional and not contrary to agreed upon contract, does not violate any rights.

        1. This is the precise opposite of “an institution having whatever process they want to sever ties with a customer or employee.” The legislature here is proposing to dictate what that process will be.

        2. Sure, but not violating any rights does not mean “is logical”, or “is sane” either.

          The fact is BOTH students are paying customers and it would be incredibly stupid to have a policy by which you refuse to serve 1 customer based completely unsubstantiated allegations of another. Doing so creates a nuclear arms race where the best option for any guy who has a 1 night stand is to immediately report himself as having been a victim of rape to the college because it would be his only possibility of ever receiving a fair hearing.

    2. Workplaces that suspect their customers, contractees or employees of crimes in the workplace sever relationships with those people with little or no ‘due process’ all the time.

      And if all colleges were private, this would be a dandy little analogy. Also…

      If there is not a contractual obligation to give such process then at the most you have a silly policy, but no one’s rights have been violated.

      There was no suggestion that anyone’s rights had been violated in the passage from which you quoted. If you’re going to argue with the voices in your head, could you keep the responses there as well?

      1. There is a difference between the state refusing to prohibit private colleges for expelling women for engaging in premarital sex (while not expelling men for the same conduct), and states requiring private colleges to expel women for engaging in premarital sex, while prohibiting them from expelling men for engaging in that same conduct.

  13. “N69QF, cleared for 1st base, climb and maintain 6,900 until BOOBI, then direct VAGIN. Remain outside Class V. Poon approach frequency 369.12”

    1. Kind of gives “touch-and-goes” a whole new meaning.

    2. “Insert tab A into slot B.”

  14. I’m sorry, we already have a criminal justice system, with courts, advocates, due process, all of that stuff. I’m not seeing any way that state institutions acting outside of established law (and very likely outside of the state and national constitutions) in violation of long-recognized principles of due process isn’t flagrantly illegal.

    1. Due process might be owed in state institutions, but as you know the due process that is demanded in different state institutions varies quite a bit and is usually something lower than that which is found in the criminal justice system.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathews_v._Eldridge

      1. For a crime like rape? If we walk down that path, then say, the DMV could revoke a guy’s license because he couldn’t prove his innocence?

        1. You mean like they already do with DUI?

          Sex is a privilege, not a right. The state is free to do anything they want to regulate the use of what they own.

          1. DUI requires a conviction, doesn’t it?

            1. Not to have your license revoked, no.

            2. Not if you refuse a breathalyzer or are otherwise non-compliant. Due process goes out the window because you “agreed” to be punished by “choosing” to drive. Universities will just get you to “agree” that defending yourself is admitting guilt. Some of them are almost there as is…

              1. It’s bullshit with the DUI, of course, but rape is a capital crime in many states.

                1. Er, not since Coker v. Georgia

                  1. That’s right. Okay, extremely serious felony then.

              2. The idea that driving on public roads is a “privilege” is one of the most outrageous abuses of due process there is.

                1. Due process in the text of the 5th and 14th attaches to life, liberty and property (this is why it doesn’t fit well in this situation, a college education is none of those unless you buy into the progressive legal idea of ‘quasi-property interests’ in government benefits). I’d argue the freedom to drive places is a liberty interest, and in our society a very important one.

              3. “Universities will just get you to “agree” that defending yourself is admitting guilt. ”

                They usually have a student code in their handbooks, when you contract with them you and they agree to abide by it.

                1. This is stretching things too far in my book. Besides, do they keep secret their determination that the “raper” was tossed for that reason? If not, that’s a massive hit on their earning power, since good luck getting into a school with that on your record.

                  Also, I think it’s pretty obvious this will be applied in a discriminatory manner.

            3. Google administrative license revocation

        2. In the famous Smith free exercise case the entire thing revolved around two Native Americans who lost their unemployment benefits because they used drugs (peyote). I don’t recall that there was any criminal investigation at all.

          It’s common for those who do business with the government or receive a benefit from them to have that severed for acts that would be criminal acts, and the amount of due process is nearly always lower than that in the criminal justice system.

          I doubt many people here would like it if it became a general principle that one could not lose any government benefit unless they were convicted of the alleged offense in a criminal court.

          1. I doubt many people here would like it if it became a general principle that one could not lose any government benefit unless they were convicted of the alleged offense in a criminal court.

            I wonder what the actual fuck would make you think that, considering that Reason and the commentariat has strongly opposed efforts to restrict things like food stamps and access to government cash benefits based on the non-criminal behaviors of the beneficiary.

            Also, it may be worth picking the nit that attending a state university isn’t exactly a “government benefit” in the sense you are using the term since you do, in point of fact, pay out the ass for the privilege. I’m sure that even the people who would support revoking promised benefits to a beneficiary of state largesse based on something less than actual conviction for a crime would be willing to differentiate between collecting TANF or Social Security payments and attending a state university with a couple hundred thousands in student loans.

          2. LOL, how many people do you think you will find here who are in favour of government benefits in the first place. Cut them all off!

  15. This is the progressive version of outlawing sodomy. Lawrence v. Texas in reverse.

  16. If the victim is frozen in shock and can’t say no, that is going to be rape. The rule has never been anything short of affirmative verbal denial is consent. Hess is either stupid or dishonest when she says that.

    I am going to assume for a moment that people like Hess are not dishonest but just stupid. Betting on stupid is never a bad bet when the subject is a writer at Slate. What they don’t understand is that the issue is not whether in the abstract a woman who doesn’t want to have sex yet is unable to say so and the guy has sex with her anyway is rape. It most assuredly is. The issue is how do we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that is what happened. If the case is like most rape cases a he said she said case, the jury has to look at the totality of the circumstances to make a finding. Lets say two drunken college students are going at it and the woman says “hey I didn’t want to have sex and he did anyway” and the defendant says “She was all over me and never told me now or do anything but welcome my advances”. If what the woman says is true and she didn’t want to have sex the guy did it anyway because she was too drunk to stop him, that is rape. But given the circumstances there is no way that a jury could possibly conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was. That is what half wits like Hess don’t like and don’t understand. They can’t grasp the idea of reasonable doubt and think any acquittal is an endorsement of no not really meaning no. It is not.

    1. Hess is a woodland sprite. Who knows how her species has sex?

    2. But that’s part of the point right? Now, if the female says that she didn’t want sex, the prosecutor is going to point to the absence of consent as proof that the male raped her.

      (90%+ of the time it’s going to be the male who’s on trial here)

      And most young people aren’t going to have recorded mutual consent. So this effectively flips the burden of proof. And that’s what the feminists want. They want to have accused rapists have to prove their innocence or get punished.

      You’ll note they are going after the universities first. Areas where they can effectively punish the alleged offenders without any proof whatsoever.

      1. Hmmm, ok your post below indicates we both agree, so … nevermind.

        1. It is all about making consent an affirmative defense and getting around the reasonable doubt standard. I don’t think you can do that consistent with due process. I also don’t think you can do that consistent with logic.

          You can say consent is an affirmative defense all you want. But the issue is still lurking in the basic elements of rape. Rape necessarily means “sex by force”. The government has to prove all of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt about consent, then there is reasonable doubt about force.

    3. John, I agree with you and I understand your passion on the subject, but that paragraph was nigh incomprehensible.

      1. It is. Sorry about that. But it is a tough subject with a lot of nuance. Hard to boil down to a simple paragraph in just typing off a missive on a comment board.

        1. Agreed. We need to define scenarios.

          Scenario 1: “A woman doesn’t want to have sex yet, but is unable to say so due to intoxication, fear or speech impediment. The guy has sex with her anyway.”

          Scenario 1 is rape.

          Etc…

    4. Rape is difficult to prove, and that’s never going to change. It sucks, but allowing some rapists to remain unconvicted is a better outcome than weakening the presumption of innocence.

      And if you make the point that women should take steps to protect themselves, like learning self-defense, taking care of each other, and not getting blackout drunk in frat houses, the harpy crowd shrieks about teaching men not to rape and then holds a slutwalk. It’s bizarre.

      1. I never got the “teach men not to rape” thing. I am pretty sure we already do that, and the people who do commit rape know that it’s wrong. Maybe this was just my experience, but I am pretty sure I was never taught rape was okay.

        1. If the statement has any meaning, it’s only that men are supposed to be ashamed of being men.

      2. teaching men not to rape

        Maybe if universities make this a required course they can absolve themselves of all responsibility in this nonsense?

        “Welcome to Don’t Rape 101. I’m Professor Warty. Over the next 3 months I will prove to you that I was the worst possible candidate to teach this course. Actually, I’ll only need about 5 minutes. Now, do I have any volunteers?”

        1. “Now, I’m going to demonstrate what a real rape looks like so that you know the difference. I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 3, not including 1 and 3. Who can guess the number? There’ll be a surprise!”

        2. I assume he then rules out using any of the volunteers and chooses someone who didn’t consent instead?

          1. He’s just trying to demonstrate that even volunteering doesn’t always count as consent. I mean, how could that poor bastard who put his hand up really have known what he was getting himself into?

      3. See my response to Tony. Women should avoid putting themselves in certain situations not because anything they ever do could make them deserve to be raped. They should avoid situations because if they are raped it will be impossible to prove that is what happened.

        The funny thing is that feminists are totally okay with telling men that with regards to young women. I guarantee you Hess would have no problem with telling male high school girls’ sports coaches to never be alone with their athletes so that there is never any danger of someone accusing them of something. That is no different than telling a woman not to get drunk and go into a hotel room alone with a guy. But somehow doing that is sexist and endorsing rape.

      4. And if you make the point that women should take steps to protect themselves, like learning self-defense, taking care of each other, and not getting blackout drunk in frat houses, the harpy crowd shrieks about teaching men not to rape and then holds a slutwalk. It’s bizarre.

        Responsibility and self ownership is an artifact of the patriarchy and subject to random and wild change without notice.

    5. If what the woman says is true and she didn’t want to have sex the guy did it anyway because she was too drunk to stop him, that is rape.

      I’d call that assumption of the risk, at worst, presuming these are 2 people voluntarily in a bed and doing other sexy time things. Context matters.

      If drunk humping is rape, then we’ll have to empty the streets and fill the prisons.

      1. I am not talking about drunk humping. I am talking about having sex with a woman who is obviously incoherent or passed out and has no idea what is going on or is too fucked up to do anything about it even if she did. That is rape.

        If you don’t believe me, think of a different situation. Suppose instead of going to her room and making out with the guy, she stumbles back drunk into her room and forgets to lock the door. Then the guy comes in and has sex with her and she is too drunk to put up a fight or even say a coherent word to tell him no. Isn’t that rape? Absolutely.

        The first situation is no different. It is still rape. The only difference is that in the first situation the circumstances are such that it is reasonable to believe she may have consented. It is not in the second.

        1. That’s why I said context matters. Your first description is pretty rapey, but it would depend on what happened prior to the drinking. Was sex consensual and a sure lock at the beginning of the night, but later she changed her mind and didn’t tell him and/or didn’t make any contrary indications? Was there a history of previous sexual relations and a reasonable set of expectations? Or was it a spur of the moment thing?

          Context matters. So does intent.

          We can all think of a thousand combinations of behavior and circumstances that wouldn’t be rape, but you could make it sound like it was.

          In the end, they’re trying to codify human behavior and they will fail miserably. They may get a few more actual rapists, but they’ll get far more many innocent men in the process.

          1. Context matters only because it is what tells us what happens. In the end what makes rape rape is not context but the intent and the actions of the accused. Context only matters because we can’t go back in time and read his mind and thus are left to infer what happened based on the context.

            So, it is entirely possible that the accused is guilty of rape in the first situation. It is just going to be impossible to prove that to be the case because of the context. The context doesn’t make him innocent. It just makes it impossible for someone on the outside looking back to know that.

            1. Context matters in that we all process non-verbal information, constantly. Tone of voice, body posture, facial expressions, etc. Add in the sexual history of the couple (if any) and what seems like a slam dunk suddenly becomes very murky.

              All of this is to say that the dishonest efforts to mandate affirmative consent, and to attempt codify and take into account all of the subtleties and nuances of human sexual activity, is fatally flawed and doomed to fuck over many, many innocent people.

            2. Actually, rape is based upon consent of the victim not actions or intent of the accused. The accused can do the exact same actions with the exact same mindset two times and one time it will be okay because the victim consented and the next time its a crime because the victim didn’t. That’s part of the reason that it should be on the non-consenting party to communicate if the encounter is consensual or not (obviously this excludes situation where one party is unconscious). They are the sole determinate of if a crime occurred or not, so they have a duty to inform the other party.

    1. The padres in South Bend must be quaking in their cassocks right now, right?

      1. What? Did you insinuate something disparaging about The Irish!?! Fuck That = LETS FIGHT!

    2. Isn’t the PTO fubarred enough without having to make ethical decisions?

      1. They should change their name to the Washington Queers or Fudgepackers with a note daring them to find those words offensive.

  17. So are affirmative consent laws a good idea? If they are broad enough to include nonverbal cues, I think so.

    She just admitted the entire idea is worthless. Non verbal cues are considered now. If the woman says rape, that is a prima facia case against the accused. The accused then has to come up with some reasonable doubt in her accusation. At this point the burden effectively shifts to the accused to show some evidence to create the reasonable doubt that she is lying. The best way to do that is to argue that she consented. One way to show consent is nonverbal cues.

    People like Hess don’t seem to understand that a jury can convict someone right now on the basis of the victim’s testimony alone. If the victim is believable and the accused doesn’t create any reasonable doubt in her story, the accused is going to be convicted. The heart of the matter is not consent or non verbal cues. The heart of the matter is that as it stands an accused only has to show reasonable doubt that the victim consented to be acquitted.

    1. People like Hess, though in fairness I don’t think Hess is bright enough to understand just what her objection really is, hate that. What they want to do is make the accused prove consent as an affirmative defense and by a preponderance of the evidence. This would mean that accused would be convicted even though juries found reasonable doubt that the victim consented.

      Since rape cases nearly always turn on consent, it is a backdoor way to lower the standard of proof in rape cases to preponderance of the evidence rather than reasonable doubt.

    2. It certainly raises the value of calling the girl the next day. If you can show a post-coital pattern of consensual social contact afterwards, that throws cold water on her entire claim.

      1. It does. Of course there are a ton of alleged “trauma experts” out there who will tell you that even having sex with her rapist is not inconsistent with being raped and something victims will do. No shit. I don’t buy it. But they do.

  18. “Can Someone Just Invent an ‘I Consent to Sex’ iPhone App Already?”

    Rico tires of having to collect so many signatures.

    1. And NSA employees grow restless of having to compare the 3 a.m. bootie call metadata with the 3 a.m. gps data to confirm/deny the occurrence of sex.

  19. Where can i download the cheat code hack toggling on/off the consent /n-consent button?

  20. Was anyone ever actually confused about “no means no”? Is anyone ever actually confused about whether they are raping or being raped?

    *walks away slowly*

    1. It doesn’t matter Tony. What matters is can someone in that situation ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were raped. And the answer to that is no.

      The reason why it is a bad idea for women to get piss drunk and go off alone making out with strangers is not because doing that means they deserve to be raped. It is because if they are raped, it is going to be well neigh impossible to prove it in court given those circumstances.

      1. I’m fine if women stop getting drunk.

      2. The funny thing about feminism (and Tony’s trollish adoption of it) is that this “legal” advice has nothing to do with gender or rape.

        Hell, Aron Ralston can attest that even going off alone into seemingly benign situations sober can turn out bad.

    2. Tony, you need to try harder making your comments less substance-rich and thoughtful, and instead just dilute them to half-formed bleats and barks that make ‘nearly human’ sounds that people imbue with some sort of projected meaning.

  21. “Strangers… in the night… exchanging forms…..”

    1. I’ll need this notarized, before you’re scorin’

  22. So people with flip phones don’t get any legal tail?

    1. Just have her call you and leave a voice message detailing what you are and are not allowed to do with her that night.

  23. Call me an old-fashioned innocent,

    but something in my bullshit-detector is telling me that modern culture has not in fact changed greatly in the last 100 years as much as we might think

    Women expect men to make the ‘first kiss’.

    Why? i don’t really care and am not about to crack open more gender-studies bullshit to tell me why. But they do. Ask any 10,000 teenagers what the deal is, and they will give you Uncensored Reality = boys make ‘the move’. It hasn’t changed. yes, there are the odd exceptions, but they are notable only as that. Boys go for it, and girls give the ‘red-light/green-light’ pass.

    Fast forward to sexy-time. Is it – or has it ever been – any different?

    yes, when people are more mature, mutual consent is simpler, faster, more direct and obvious. It even frquently works ‘the other way around’ where girls initiate/proposition etc.

    I’d argue that despite this, the same basic underlying dynamic applies. Which is why, no matter how any scenario got started, that any woman can at any time call something ‘unpermitted’ because the entire mental construct women have regarding sexual relations is that they are the ‘permission giver’ – NOT an equal partner in a ‘mutual contract’. Its never been otherwise.

    The idea that women hand out permission slips for sexual activity is some old-school, deep-coded mojo. (and hence why so many idjits spend their careers ‘discoursing’ about it in graduate studies)

    1. Not a damned thing has changed except outside of the actual relationships.

      1. I can confirm through a pretty decent (though progressively smaller) sample size that women in their twenties still generally expect men to do the following first:

        1) Ask the other person on a date

        2) Pay for the date

        3) Call/text/whatever to ask the other person on followup dates

        4) Kiss the other person

        5) Suggest going to the bedroom

        6) etc

        1. “Etc”

          For the kids out there = by ‘etc’ he means, ‘eat pussy until she begs to get fucked’.

          And so ends this weeks’ after-school special!

    2. It is complete crap. Look on the internet sometime and see how many women are having BDSM and rape role plays and fantasies. The entire feminist position on rape stands in complete contradiction to their views on sex and women’s empowerment.

      But the point here is not to punish rapist. The point here, as with all things feminist, is to punish men and give women more power. They don’t give a shit about rape. What they want is for women to have the power to imprison any man on her word alone.

      1. Look on the internet sometime and see how many women are having BDSM and rape role plays and fantasies.

        Since you twisted my arm…

        (That’s what she said)

      2. “They don’t give a shit about rape. What they want is for women to have the power to imprison any man on her word alone.”

        Of course they don’t give a shit about rape. If they did, they sure as hell wouldn’t be trying to elevate regretted drunken hook-ups to the same status. Really, it’s disgusting. They’re taking people’s (and most men included’s) legitimate revulsion toward what is properly a heinous crime and twisting it into a third-rate power play. Honestly, I suspect that, in the long run, it might very well blow up in their (and unfortunately a lot of innocent womens’) faces, as the mores against rape become watered down.

        1. I suspect you are right about that Bill.

  24. There already is an app for that. It’s called CAMERA. It comes pre-installed on the iPhone.

    1. Actually, you really do need permission before filming yourself having sex with someone. Trust me.

      1. Go on…

      2. Sounds like the voice of sad experience.
        Is there a link to the video?

        1. Google, “Gloryhole” and your mom’s name.

          1. I’ll take “the rapist” for $200, Alex. And your mother says, “hello.”

      3. Is this an exception to the “single party consent” recording rules in most states?

  25. Since a woman’s consent is ultimately meaningless because it can be revoked at ANY time, sounds like the only solution is to make the woman’s consent binding and irrevocable. It would never happen, but it’d be nice…

    1. sounds like the only solution is to make the woman’s consent binding and irrevocable.

      We used to call that “marriage”.

  26. What is the real cause for the increase in sexual assaults?
    http://cindybiondigobrecht.wor…..ults-rise/

    1. It is funny Cindy, you hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph and then proceed to ignore it for the rest of your post because you are too busy waging a culture war against sex.

      “It narrows the definition of consent in sexual relations and increases the opportunity for prosecution of assault.”

      In otherwords the reason sexual assault seems to be on the rise from the Feminist perspective is they have in their own minds narrowed the definition of consent to the point where virtually any sex a woman later regrets for any reason is defined as rape (and in some cases they even go so far as to tell women who do not believe themselves to have been raped that they are just suffering from false consciousness or stockholm syndrome because really they must have been raped by that icky man).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.