A province of Australia has passed a law requiring that those entering into any type of sexual situation say yes before said encounter occurs. This applies to any and all parties. If it is found that any party did not say yes, this constitutes rape. What are the implications of a law such as this?

As I take it, part of the law’s purpose is to make clear what consent means.




34 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. griz 10 months ago

    My thought on that is why not just make it a written contract? Then it would be a lot harder to weasel out of it 10 years later. (Though I’m sure some would still try). But what would we stand to lose by making sex akin to a business contract?

    Personally I think we stand to lose a lot in infantalizing women like this. Are they stupid? Do they not understand what is going on when they are giving abundant sexual signals? Are they somehow not responsible for the signals they send? Do they not understand the ramifications of going along with and endorsing the sexual signals a man is giving?
    ANY concept of “equality” will HAVE to have women standing up and taking SOME degree of responsibility for who they fall into bed with.

    For the record I will say that rape is wrong, and either side trying to “maneuver” the other — whether by physical, financial, emotional or psychological means — indicates pathology within them and you should not be in an intimate situation with such a person, no matter how desperate for a lay you might be. So learn from it, and catch such pathology sooner and soon. Personally I think a lot of this is exacerbated by women trying to artificially prove they are as capable of promiscuous behavior, as men can naturally afford to be.
    (But then we initiated concepts like the marriage covenant and the precepts of “the gentleman” as correction/containment of these things . . . until recent movements have sabotaged them into uselessness)

    One of the key disappointments I have with feminism is the pervasive attempt to try to re-frame the past to convince women of how powerless and stupid and fragile they are just to maintain a victim-hood ideology that is starting to fall apart at the seams.

    I forget where, but I read one article where someone was proposing that a woman needed to re-iterate her consent ever few moments during a sexual encounter or else it was rape.

    Reply

    • immortal_pirate 10 months ago

      @griz So, while she is shouting YES, YES, YES, OH GOD YES, is she re-affirming her consent or is it just her telling you that you’re hitting all the right buttons that get her to orgasmic bliss.

      Reply

      • griz 10 months ago

        @immortal_pirate
        From all indications, that will be up to a University “section IX” investigation committee or court of law to determine!

        This REALLY is getting out-of-hand.

        (I’m sure there’s a bad pun there somewhere but alas, I fear indictment should I verbalize it and someone use it 20 years down the road to self-injure with!)

        Reply

      • immortal_pirate 9 months ago

        @griz …sexual hypocrisy…

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @immortal_pirate
        An interesting prospect. I’ll have to put some thought into that one.

        It’s certainly not equality or responsibility or competency or anything else good ai can think of.

        I’m just curious, where you found yourself during the 20th Century Marxist experiments? Anywhere where you might have a first-hand account of them?

        Reply

    • Author
      Scarlett 9 months ago

      @griz my thoughts were that it would be very hard for one to prove. What if one first says yes, and then says no? what If there are three people involved in the encounter, and only two say yes?
      will this make it easier to prove rape, if either party has second thoughts after the deed has been done?
      revenge? there are so many scenarios where a law such as this could be used in the wrong way.
      On the other hand, the spirit of the law, to help all understand what consent means, I think is a good one.
      As for the feminist framework in dealing with women, especially those who have indeed been victims, is to name what happened to them. It is a very important step to acknowledge one’s trauma before healing can begin. Once the trauma is acknowledged, then and only then is the person able to move past what you call victim hood onto a fruitful, and productive life, even perhaps using the time they were indeed a victim for some good use.

      Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Scarlett
        I almost didn’t post what I did, out of concern and respect for you. But we really need to know where our friends stand.

        I am all for women’s rights and for supporting genuine victims of troglodyte males. If I could offer any kind of meaningful apology on male’s behalf I would. (But I will not fold that into male shaming).

        My my concern is with what feminism has become: particularly with the spirit of what is currently empowering it.

        I see you as an intelligent and thoughtful woman in a position to do much good; but also uncomfortably close to ideologies in the social services that are dangerous. But I also think you have a good spirit about you that will guide you well.

        Victim-hood is a very real thing. But the treating of it as some kind of “power” or “currency” is dangerous. It plays into a social “oppressed vs oppressed” feed-back loop that I think you see (your comment about revenge).

        The task of those who are conscious is no small one: to aid those who teeter on the brink of the oppressed/oppressor ideology who are genuine victims, separating them from this who just seek power-by-proxy for petty reasons, and to help develop both personal and inter-sex health.

        There is a way for victims to become not just personal overcomers, but forces that actively help others to enjoy the same.

        I’m very glad my response didn’t put you off responding. You have my respect and I greatly value your input in the conversations we have.

        Reply

  2. Jear77 9 months ago

    There are a variety of problems with that… as well as @griz solution of a contact. But maybe we’ve regressed to the point that we need such artificial constraints on behavior in order to protect one’s self and provide assurance that their behavior won’t come back to bite them later.

    Reply

    • Author
      Scarlett 9 months ago

      @Jear77 regressed or evolved?

      Reply

      • Jear77 9 months ago

        @Scarlett regressed. Evolved has a positive connotation.

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Scarlett
        Legally mandated equal opportunity for women is clearly an evolution.

        Almost everything else is a devolution. The whole dance of the saintly oppressed versus the evil oppressor (Marxism) is socio-toxic.
        Women burning themselves out, trying to do it all, trying to re-assign time proven-roles and leaving nothing of meaning for the men in the boys to do (besides sperm donors and becoming feminists) is another example.

        As well as trying to demonize the entire patriarchal process that has made our race the success that it is today.
        They are all notable evolutionary steps backwards.

        One side advancing at the expense of the other is no kind of workable solution.

        Reply

  3. fosheet 9 months ago

    Hi, devil’s advocate here. “Saying yes prior to all sexual encounters” fair enough, but what if a party says yes before then changes their mind and says no during. They still said yes at the beginning.

    What if the person says yes, but has mental limitations and cannot make decisions on their own? They still said yes at some point.

    What if yes later becomes revenge and “I actually didn’t give consent bu they misunderstood my wording/actions”

    …or better yet, what about those who are coerced into saying yes, either by alchocol/drugs/threats. They did say yes, but does it really matter why?

    What if they gave consent prior to, then get bound and gagged and wish to stop but cannot verbalize desires? They still gave consent prior to.

    Giving consent is a great thing, but the problem comes not from the consent, but the lack thereof. The problem with consent is that it can be open to interpretation. And in this situation, the interpretation is a room full of strangers acting as a committee.

    Reply

    • Author
      Scarlett 9 months ago

      @fosheet and at the end of the day, it’s still a he said/she said situation

      Reply

    • griz 9 months ago

      @fosheet
      It’s profound that nations boasting the greatest freedoms would really want the State to play Nanny enforcer over our sexual relationships.

      But there are increasing populations of both sexes who have no concept of what consent means, and continues to mean.

      So if we cannot sort this out interpersonally, we are essentially requiring the State to come up with something akin to licenses of Competency to give consent!

      Essentially a license to be an adult!

      This whole “protect us from adult accountability” schick has gone too far.

      Colleges and universities have enacted what they call “Section IX” student Behavior policies to govern what happens sexually out of class: instead of just letting proper authorities investigate in deal with cases of genuine rape.

      They have now backfired with an increasing number of college boys leveling charges against girls and winning. Because so many girls if have abused this to take advantage of situations, it goes something like this.

      After a party a boy wakes up naked next to a girl and it’s obvious they’ve had sex together. Fearful that she might “Section IX” him out of future regret or revenge and he lose everything, he “Section IX”s her first. And the framework is set up to believe the complaining victim over all else.

      This is the inevitable ending — a self-destructive feedback loop of all such attempts to replace adult competency with nanny-State compassion.

      Reply

      • fosheet 9 months ago

        @griz we had to go through a section ix counseling. It is very “one-sided” and usually does tend to side with the victim.

        Which brings a further point… If it is found that the victim has lied or made accusations that are untrue, why don’t we punish them?

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @fosheet
        There is no real investigation because there are no real investigators involved on the committees/tribunals.

        How exactly does one prove false allegation in a micro-aggressed postmodern world? Heaven forbid they insist there is such a thing as objective true and objective false! They may have felt very subjectively assaulted by a loutish come-on, the color of their pants, or the absence of puppy pictures on the walls.
        And no safe-zones in sight with soothing music and crayons so they can express themselves.

        Reply

  4. Yin 9 months ago

    Difficult to say. On paper, I can understand it. In practice, it doesn’t really seem like that much of a difference. It still falls into a “he said, she said” situation. Either side could lie for whatever reason. Only if there is video, audio, or the person actually or accidentally tells the truth that they did or didn’t say it, then it isn’t much different than what happens now. There is also the thing where consent is given but taken away in the middle of, which if either or any party involved says that they are done for any reason at all, then they are done. Does the consenting factor in that? I think we may need better sex ed. to help kids understand what is and isn’t consent or signs that consent can’t be given.

    Reply

    • Author
      Scarlett 9 months ago

      @Yin that’s exactly what I was thinking on the he said/she said. The whole thing seems problematic, but maybe the spirit of it was the point, to give people a guide to what consent actually means? Do you think it will act as a deterrent to some sexual assault?

      Reply

      • Yin 9 months ago

        @Scarlett Yea, it could mean that they are super serious about going after sexual assault and rape. I think it could potentially be a deterrent right out of the gate, but I can’t see it working long term at all. I mean, I can’t really see regular people really going for that either. There will be people who take it very seriously and I respect that, but I also know there will be some good, regular people that just won’t bother with it. Overall, the law just seems like a statement more than anything. I hope I am wrong and this actually works, but I just can’t see it.

        Reply

    • griz 9 months ago

      @Yin
      The problem with letting the education system do this is that in previous decades they’ve become more indoctrinators of victimhood agendas than true educators.

      Reply

      • Yin 9 months ago

        @griz Once we are done with making victims, then I will be concerned with this “victimhood agenda” thing.

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Yin
        So you are essentially saying never.

        Because you are never going to be able to totally mandate proper behavior in Free People. You have to destroy that freedom with a dictatorial tyranny, vested with enough power to totally override the rights and freedoms of the individual.
        Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is not awake and paying attention.

        As we discussed in another thread this morning, these regimes never last. And while they do exist, they tend to crank out murderous misery and gross violations of human rights.

        We need to address these victimhood agendas right now: because they are the start of something so horrendous that we will not be able to stop it without replaying one of these cautionary tragedies from the 20th century all over again.

        Saying we are not going to address it until there are no more victims is like saying we’re not going to address it until there are no more humans.

        Reply

      • Yin 9 months ago

        @griz I said that because I don’t know what you are talking about with this victimhood agenda stuff. People are coerced or forced and then they talk about it. If that is the victimhood agenda, then no, never stop it.

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Yin
        They are the identity groups exercising political power over both society and the individual based on how oppressed they can claim they are within their own mind.
        The prime example is the group of triggered feminists who think they can turn regret into a charge of rape, even when there was Mutual consent.

        Reply

      • Yin 9 months ago

        @griz And you are saying schools are teaching things like this? How are these people leading this charge if only 2% of rape allegations are false reports? How is this issue bigger (which I do agree is an issue) than the one of actual rape? Also, there can be mutual consent going into it, but that can be rescinded by any person involved whenever they choose (just clarifying.) And I know you didn’t say it yourself that it was a bigger issue than rape, but I’m not sure how else I am suppose to take it when someone questions why a school or such would need to teach kids what consent is so they don’t rape people because these schools somehow teach kids things similar to falsely accusing people of rape.

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Yin
        The schools are actively teaching children how to be better triggered victims over smaller and smaller microaggressions; and blatantly teaching this is some sort of social currency.
        Schools post right in their promotional literature that they are teaching kids they can make the world a better place not by controlling themselves but by seeking to control others.

        Where are you getting your 2% stat from. And it would be far more effective if it included all forms of alleged sexual misconduct. After all, the victimhood groups are alleging that whistling at a girl or complimenting her outfit leads to — or is even the same thing as rape.

        Are you starting to see why this needs to be addressed first? It is shifting the spotlight off of the fewer genuine cases of criminal rape.

        Which do you think is the nobler teaching? Respect for others? Or “getting consent so you don’t rape”?

        The latter does seem like a teaching for neanderthals who cannot grasp the first lesson.

        And this is where the political power victimhood groups are taking us. That is why it has become the paramount issue we need to address: because it is seriously compromising our ability to deal effectively with the original issue.

        Reply

      • Yin 9 months ago

        @griz Making kids be nice and tolerant of other people? Yea. I mean, Martin Luther King, Jr. got shot after all of his peaceful protests. What could he have worked on himself to make that and similar situations not happen? Or, could the shooter have been taught to be a better person as a kid and avoid that situation? Maybe neither would have worked, but one sounds more plausible than the other.

        I got that number by typing in “women lying about rape” into Google and found it on multiple top results. Whistling could be seen as a form of harassment. Certain compliments and the attitude the person has delivering it could be seen as creepy (sometimes gross) and could be found to be concerning. Like in one of Scarlett’s older posts I commented on. Just don’t be creepy. Keep the compliment nice without trying to force it into something more or a conversation. Keep away from sexualized body parts and keep it classy is what I’d advise. While I agree that this isn’t rape, it is still concerning when people take it further than just a compliment or when someone can’t walk down a sidewalk without being whistled and hollered at the entire way.

        Teaching consent is teaching respect for others. It is really the entire point. Respect another person’s body and personal space, even if you had consent in the past with them. Even if you are in a relationship or marriage now. Respect their decisions over their body and space. Respect others.

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Yin
        The victimhood agendas teach that we need to control others with group/State wielded power. Teaching a child respect for others is essentially teaching them to control themselves. it honors the sanctity of the individual. No amount of controlling others is going to bring on the Utopia. I cannot believe people are so historically dense that they cannot learn the lessons of Marxism, even after repeated attempts failed horribly.

        I found your stat, but not by going for the most popular answers. Because true studies that don’t line up with agendas are not very popular.
        The true stat is 2 to 10%; but this is not a true figure because no study has been specifically formulated to determine this. Data comes from crime stats from different jurisdictions having different definitions of what is malicious lying, what is false accusation, when evidence is lacking, when evidence is contrary. . . And a large number of the excluding all cases where anything resembling abusive consent existed.
        So what we are left with is a mish-mosh of definitions, and trying to extract meaning from stats that they were never designed to deliver. More targeted recent studies are finding values closer to 5.5% which seem small, but it’s still five times higher than most other criminal accusations, indicating that it is being misused.
        In a postmodern victimhood State one needs to be very cautious of just settling for the most popular or the most convenient answer.
        Which is yet another reason why confronting these victimhood groups is a Paramount issue: they are intentionally confounding the framework by which we solve social issues.

        Teaching consent in schools is the Neanderthal backup to parents failing in duty to their children.
        And once we’ve empowered the state in such ways to make up for the failings of parents, that power will corrupt and will never be relinquished. Governments tend not to lay down Powers once they’ve acquired them.

        The cautionary lesson of Marxism is granting the State the power to force change on others and do things that the family should be doing, always fails catastrophically.

        Reply

      • Yin 9 months ago

        @griz Well, yea, if the parents are failing at teaching their children, who better to teach them than the people actually trained to do it? Rather that then them just going about life thinking they got it when they don’t. I’d argue that school in general is made for parents failing in the teaching area. It is already government. Adding another lesson isn’t going to change that at all.

        And I’m just curious. Is letting the government give tank-like vehicles and SWAT-like gear and weapons to police this Marxism state power? Is taking away abortion rights and same sex partners adopting kids that desperately need adopting? Or allowing the government to give the power to the president to invade other countries? Or demanding that “In God We Trust” be put into schools again? I don’t remember them being Marxists. Though, to be fair, I don’t know much about Marxism other than it seems to be closely related to Communism, which I’m not about personally. I just feel that both major political sides have their visions of government and both are big and powerful. The left side that I am for though, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is where we get the money out of politics and let the people get to decide without corporate interference or influence.

        Reply

      • griz 9 months ago

        @Yin
        I’m old enough I still remember the indignant outcry over the Soviet practice of putting very young children in State-run daycare, where early indoctrination of them into “State-approved” thinking took hold. Later in schools, State officials would come by and give them a chance to report their parents for any and all perceived crimes (oppressions) against the State-approved mandate. Education shifted from teaching children how to think, to indoctrinating them into what to think.
        We are getting shockingly close to this. (Mainly because education right now is mostly in the hands of leftists).

        Most people don’t know about Marxism — but the wake-up call is here because it’s alive and well, particularly in the victimhood ideologies AND in our public and post-secondary schools. We are at the same point as the German citizens were under Nazism where we have to choose between ignorance for a little longer, and being silent collaborators with something malignant.
        One would have to be a potato living in a root-cellar not to notice the increasing protests on University campuses to block out anyone who might have a differing opinion — and people getting fired from Google for well-researched and documented reports noting that men and women tend to make different career choices. Actually, I think a Harvard president “”retired”” under similar circumstances. And similar things have happened at Mizzou, Washington’s Evergreen, at SFU in British Columbia, Laurier in Ontario.
        Ignorance is no longer an option, because it’s spreading.
        You yourself put forth a lot of their ideology, without being aware of it. That’s how invasive it’s become.
        We need to solve social issues, for sure. But not by proven malignant ideologies. (They persist, because they key into the emotions and feelings in the short-term).

        The US militant police state is mostly a home-grown made-in-America product. Having a more international viewpoint than most people I can posit that it is a function of Americans loving guns and hating authority; and of the police responding to this in the people, who then respond to that in the police (hating authority even more and arming themselves even more against it) . . . who the police respond to, who the citizens respond to . . . It’s a feed-back loop.

        And no, the Soviet Marxists never did this. The Cheka and NKVD ran “suspects” through mock-courts and then made them disappear into the vast Gulag Archipelago. The information is out there, for people who don’t want to be ignorant collaborators in what is currently going on in the West.

        The problem with leftist politics and ideologies right now, is that they are very infected with neo-Marxism. And with people choosing to remain ignorant of History and Human nature, it has become THE pressing issue in Western society.

        Other sides and “agendas” have their problems and dangers too. It’s just right now the left-to-extreme-left is presenting the most seriously threat to the kind of freedom and democracy they claim to be clamoring and fighting and protesting for.

        If we want to fix this, we need to get our heads on straight. Even if that means sacrificing some comfort and bliss.

        (Which in a way, is how we grow up from being children into adults).

        Reply

  5. immortal_pirate 9 months ago

    Verbal consent is a verbal contract between two or more parties, engaged in an activity. If one or more of the said parties later breaks the contract by stating that there was no consent, after the fact, that would be a breach of contract and make the party liable for damages incurred.
    So, if John and Jane have sexual relations with co-consent and then Jane cries rape after sex, Jane is in breach of contract and can be sued by John for said breach of their verbal contract. Now, let’s take this to a different level: Jane is offering sexual services in exchange for financial compensation. Both parties agree to a set financial amount, to be paid to Jane for her services, and following the completion of services rendered, John refuses to pay Jane the agreed upon amount. Now John is in breach of contract and can be held liable for said breach of contract. But it still rape? Mutual consent was given by both parties prior to the act of sexual intercourse.

    The only thing securing the contract in this scenario is the act of paying for services prior to the rendering of services. Which is what normally occurs in such circumstances.

    Reply

    • ladybarbara 9 months ago

      @immortal_pirate Just the stack of contracts and paperwork for our first date was horrendous !!! However, now with the years, it gets simpler.

      Reply

    • griz 9 months ago

      @immortal_pirate
      Let’s start with the premise that no woman needs to feel pressured to consent for the sake of wealth or social status. She now has legislated legal equal opportunity to generate and maintain these herself. (With associated costs and responsibilities of such rights, naturally)

      So excluding all variations of illegal activities (rape, trafficking, spousal abuse, and prostitution in many jurisdictions), what reason would there be for her to give to consent to a man who does not demonstrate traits she deems competent and desirable; perhaps even noble?

      Evolution has assessed a far higher cost on women for sexual promiscuity, both physically and psychologically. (And then yes, society then came and assessed a few of their own on top of this).

      And yes, men are more “enabled” by evolution to be sexually promiscuous; but society enacted things like the gentleman’s code, and the marriage covenant to bestow social honor upon men committing to monogamous lifetime relationship and the responsibilities of fatherhood. (And yes, society gave the nod to promiscuous male cads for far too long)

      But all the gentleman have been replaced with MGTOW’s and femi-men building in frustration for being labeled congenitally toxic: and marriage is far too often found enabling gold diggers and bestowing society’s honor upon non-productive gay and lesbian couples.

      Reply

      • immortal_pirate 9 months ago

        @griz So much legalism and social bias and gender bending and gender shaming…I can understand why dating has become an outdated concept.

        You want a safe sex threesome?…use both hands…LOL
        Laughing my ass off.

        Reply

©2019 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account