How do men prove consent?

Submitted by Mastodon on Fri, 2015-01-30 19:36

Article here. Excerpt:

'It used to be that women who made stupid mistakes with men, who had non-violent sexual encounters in dodgy circumstances — while drunk or otherwise intoxicated, in the heat of the moment or for a million other reasons — did not wake up the next morning and decide they had been raped.
...
That, at least, would seem to be the view of Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, who yesterday said the time has come to move beyond the idea of ‘no means no’.

In other words, date-rape suspects will have to prove they obtained explicit consent.
...
But, more worryingly, won’t men in rape cases automatically be presumed guilty until they can prove they have obtained consent? However appalling a crime rape may be, this cannot be right.

What makes this still more shocking is that it seems to be part of a political attempt to push up rape conviction rates and meet targets.

Because although reports of rape have risen sharply in recent years, actual convictions are lagging behind. And that doesn’t suit the so-called ‘vagenda’: the all-men-are-rapists brigade, top feministas like Harriet Harman and the femi-fascist Twitter mob who, increasingly, seem to hold sway in public policy.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The author's missing the point of the new policy: it's to take away any chance of a man showing he isn't a rapist. The whole point is to give women the arbitrary power to have men arrested on the charge of rape. The accuser need not even have had sex with the accusee.

Feminist-driven policies seek to reduce men to a state of rightlessness in the face of women. Equality, fairness, etc., much less presumed innocence, are nowhere on their radar.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2015-01-31 05:39

If they never had sex, it's impossible for him to prove he had consent. Ergo, he's guilty.

And what is consent? The law says the man needs consent to have sex with a woman. That sounds very much like a contract. But most states prohibit contracts for sex; a contract for sex is called prostitution. And in no other area of law can consent be withdrawn "at any time." For example, one might sigh a contract and have 3 days to rescind, but after that the deal is done. If either party to a contract can withdraw at anytime, the contract is unenforceable. And can the man hold the woman to the contract? Of course not. So the man tries to get the woman to "sign" a contract that is meaningless and unenforceable, but if he fails to do so he goes to jail.

Marriage used to be a contract that meant the woman consented to have sex with her husband. The idea was to encourage men to marry so they could have sex. Now, of course, men can be charged with marital rape unless he gets her consent every time. So even marriage is not consent to have sex. So what the eff is consent? Even a notarized form does not mean the woman can't withdraw consent two seconds later--so the signed form is meaningless.

So what is consent and how do you prove you had consent?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2015-01-31 15:35