Woke watch.

[CEB]

At best it would just lead to more verbally coercive behaviour amongst those who pressure women into stuff they don’t want to do.

The aim should be to instil in young men that women are actual people, and that their boundaries are worthy of respect.

[Mick McQuaid]

I'm not sure how having a law which says consent needs to be a positive action rather than a lack of resistance in any way stops that aim?

[CEB]

Specifically, the proposed law reduces interactions which are, almost by definition, nuanced and potentially awkward to a simplistic declaration which nobody who actually understands consent would even ever use. Are you intending to get ahead of this law by making sure you get a clear, verbalised “yes” from your partner every time you would like to have a sexual interaction with them? Or are you seeing it as a thing that will only be relevant to those who don’t actually understand enthusiastic consent?

It’s self evidently doomed to fail in that the people who don’t care whether their partner is enthusiastic or not will not be averse to coercing a “yes” if they have already got the motivation to coerce sex; it could then specifically be detrimental to the already slim chances of making a rape accusation stick once a woman’s coerced “yes” is used to support the idea that the rapist actually did seek consent.

Add to that that things like this take resources, and (like the ludicrous #maaaate campaign) it will be ridiculed most by some of the people it’s intended to reach, and it seems like a pretty clear cut example of doing something for the sake of doing it without any really likelihood of a positive impact, rather than doing the hard work of really looking into the cause of male people’s sense of entitlement to women’s bodies (easy access to extreme pornography from a young age not a bad place to start)

[CEB]

I’d add to that that I suspect that a lot of coerced sexual encounters are in nature about leverage of power dynamics, and those power dynamics will continue to exist regardless of this, and so I would be seriously concerned that the most likely effect in such a law is an increase in pressure on women to say yes to sexual encounters they’re not sure they want, rather than an increase in men being respectful to the women they want to have sex with, which would then, obviously, do a lot of work to undermine women’s ability to later claim that the sex was unwanted.
It’s already hard enough for women to prove they’ve been coerced: if, as I’d expect, the most visible result is a lot of men claiming that they did get a “yes”, then the group that will suffer the most will be vulnerable women who felt they had no choice but to actually give verbal consent despite not being in a situation they wanted to be in.

The proposed law is a “don’t look over there, look at how much we care about consent!”, and as a result could well do a lot more harm than good

[CEB]

Out of interest, how would one verify that you'd obtained a 'clear yes'? Do you need witnesses, or to pause your pashing in the back of the cab/on the living room sofa to get someone to sign a contract or waiver? Otherwise, while the intentions may be admirable (if misguided), everything still comes down to he said/she said.

I think the aim is to stop the 'I thought you were up for it/you didn't say no' defence. At least people would have to outright lie rather than saying it was a misunderstanding. I know someone who didn't report what they considered to be rape because they decided in the moment that the quickest and safest way out of the situation was to put up with it.

Guess what women will have to do when the quickest and safest way to survive a rape is to say “yes”?

[Hoover Attack]

Who says "I'm open to trying" ?

Your mum.

[Mick McQuaid]

Guess what women will have to do when the quickest and safest way to survive a rape is to say “yes”?

I don't want to go into details but as is often the case both people had far too much to drink. I think at worst it would have meant that the person I was thinking of wouldn't have been left wondering if she could accurately describe what happened as rape. Of course, despite not knowing the people or circumstances, you will still know better.

From a brief check I can only find information on the effect of the change in law for Sweden and Denmark, in both cases complaints and conviction rates have gone up after the change in law. I don't think anyone is claiming it is the sole thing that should be done or that it is the perfect solution, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible idea.

[CEB]

A yes obtained when someone is inebriated who otherwise would not consent is not a meaningful “yes” anyway, and it’s genuinely weird that you thought it would support your point to type that out and post it, thinking it was OK.

Even your example is illustrative of the flaws in the system, and requires no familiarity with the specifics: you describe a situation where a person who has had an unwanted sexual experience while drunk, about whom a “yes” would simply close the door on any potential of being able to get a prosecution for her attacker, rather than actually reassure her that she was not actually attacked.
“Phew, I can’t accurately describe what happened as rape” is something that’s never been said by any woman whatsoever.

[Hoover Attack]

Seems a strange thing to take issue with but I didn't want to incur the wrath of the Anti-wokers on here.

What has 'Woke Mistress General' Dr Charlotte Proudman done to deserve such a title?

[Hoover Attack]

“Phew, I can’t accurately describe what happened as rape” is something that’s never been said by any woman whatsoever.

Really?

[CEB]

Yes really. I can only assume you’ve misunderstood something - what do you think is wrong with that statement?

[Mick McQuaid]

I am reminded why I can't be arsed arguing with CEB. You skim read and misinterpret what I have said and argue against that rather than what I have actually said.

1. You can be drunk while still having capacity to make a decision, even if you may not make the same decision when sober. Not that I have done it for many years, but in my experience a drunken shag has ranged from highly enjoyable and the start of a reasonably long term relationship to minor embrassment the next morning. It is a situation where extra care needs to be taken to ensure consent is absolutely clear, and I would think exactly the kind of situation a change in law would aim to address.

2. I've said I don't want to go into details as I don't think I have any right to discuss it, but in a specific case I know what was said to me and what that persons views were - they didnt feel they could report it to the police as they hadnt actively tried to stop it, they also felt guilty for not doing so. I acknowledge it was a mistake for me to try and generalise from this.

[CEB]

You miss the point again.

A woman who wakes up in doubt as to whether she consented, and feels uncomfortable about what happened, does not benefit from the knowledge that she said “yes”, and so in the circumstances you describe, the obtaining of a “yes” protects the potential rapist from prosecution, and does not do anything material to make the woman feel better about what happened.

Meanwhile a woman who enjoyed a drunken encounter would feel relaxed about the encounter regardless of whether there’s a video message/contract/assertion that she said yes, honest.


Bizarre

[Mick McQuaid]

But it would have given her the opportunity to say no.

[CEB]

The law doesn’t create an opportunity to say “no” that isn’t already there, and a woman who wakes up after an encounter that was coerced due to incapacity will not be less traumatised if it turns out that she had a legal window of opportunity to be able to wake up knowing she was raped.

I’d be happy to continue to discuss this with you, but you seem to be both discussing a specific, and then being irritated that I respond in a way that applies my objections to your example, on the basis that I’m implying I know it better than you. So can we proceed with hypotheticals that will perhaps take in (and acknowledge) your example, but allow us to discuss it in a wider context?

[Mick McQuaid]

I think it does create another opportunity, at least in some circumstances. It is easier to say no when you are asked than it is to say stop, I don't want this.

As I have pointed out the reviews of the law change where it has been applied that I have found indicate that it has had some success in increasing the number of complaints and the number of convictions. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation and I haven't looked into it in great detail but I think it refutes your idea that it is a terrible and counterproductive idea.

At the moment the law states that to be rape the person must "know she was not consenting or being reckless as to whether she was consenting" which I think gives too much leeway for a defence of 'misunderstanding'. To me a definition that rape is simply the lack of consent is more accurate and I think what the proposal is aiming to achieve.

Of course it isn't going to stop someone who is deliberately going to coerce or threaten someone into having sex with them, I think it is aimed at the far more common scenario where men are assuming consent rather than seeking it. I think this might be where we might have the biggest difference of opinion, where you you are saying that men (except for you of course, who are clearly a paragon of virtue) will just do anything to get that yes where I think there are plenty of men who don't feel they have done anything wrong if a woman hasn't said no or think it's awkward to ask.

I think thats wrong and that proper education around consent from good role models is obviously needed to address it but I can't see how having it backed up in law that you have a responsibility to be 100% confident that the person you are having sex with is actively consenting is unhelpful.

Talking about it as if they are suggesting there's a need to show a contract or asking who is going to check is nonsense as is the idea that it's awkward to ask. "Are you sure you're OK with this?" is really not that much of a mood killer.

At the risk of giving a specific example again, I can think of an occasion many years ago when I drunkenly tried it on with someone. We didnt have sex but the lack of any enthusiastic reciprocation meant I should have stopped sooner than I did, her not telling me to stop isnt relevant. Now, I don't see myself as someone who sets out to try and take advantage or coerce someone into sex and I don't think she thought I was anything other than a bit daft but it is the kind of situation where checking would have been far better.

[Dunners]

Thank f*ck I'm married and don't have to worry about sex anymore.

[CEB]

MM, I was reading that and was (and potentially still am) up for a discussion until the needlessly snarky bit. Do you want to engage in good faith or not?

[Mick McQuaid]

Thanks for asking. No, I don't really.

[CEB]

Not surprised after the last paragraph of that, tbh

[Hoover Attack]

Talking of snark, can someone please explain why the lady behind this idea is referred to as the Woke Mistress General or whatever derogatory term was used?

[Dunners]

Yeah, that'd be me. No reason. Didn't think it would kick off like this.

[CEB]

I’m not familiar with her but if she has a track record of similar stuff to the “provocative” campaign launch (which has alienated a LOT of women who have been victims of rape and sexual assault), then that would probably go some way to explaining it.


A big problem with this whole campaign isn’t that it’s inherently a bad idea to culturally shift towards the idea of active, enthusiastic consent being the bar, but to do with the “all publicity is good publicity” shitshow of kicking it off with the slogan “I’m asking for it”, which, aside from anything else, is a slogan that focuses attention on the women who are saying yes, rather than on the women who the campaign is supposed to be supporting.

[CEB]

That's the problem, and the campaign fails to address it (probably because there's no simple solution).

The closest we get is in the FAQs on the campaign website: https://cpblondon.com/affirmative-consent-uk/#FAQ

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT?

Affirmative Consent requires the presence of a “yes” rather than the absence of a “no”. This can be expressed verbally, which is the safest and clearest form of consent. Examples of giving verbal consent include “Yes” or other affirmative statements such as “I’m open to trying”.

If you are not sure you are getting a clear and enthusiastic yes from your partner, it is your responsibility to ask. Consent cannot be inferred from silence or lack of resistance.

Back to the actual substance of the issue, this is the most relevant thing. The above advice about affirmative consent is *great* if you’re a man who needs to hear that the absence of a clear no is not a green light. As a principle to instil in young men, it’s admirable.

But the fact that, as Dunners says, the guidance is vague and actually specifies giving consent verbally, means that all sorts of questions are raised about introducing it as a legal principle.

The most obvious issue remains - a coerced “yes” could foreseeably mean that actions a woman could take in order to protect herself in the moment - in reply to “you’ll say yes, won’t you? You don’t think I’m raping you do you!!?” - would actively undermine her case when reporting. I’d need to see how this would be planned for in practice before dismissing that

Similarly, any situation where a woman is a victim of coercive behaviour within a relationship or similar with someone known to her would simply have ongoing consent coerced as part of the pattern of abuse - she isn’t protected by such a law

Situations of date rape would seem likely to be defended by men claiming that their partner did say yes, which isn’t much different to the situation now.

Taking a step back, a reasonable principle would seem to be that the more likely a man is to seek clarity over consent, the more likely it is that consent
is ambiguous at best


I’d be interested in an analysis of the stats in places where this law has come in - rape convictions are so scandalously low that an increase in them, while welcome, could feasibly increase the potential for rape convictions in one area by introducing some very simple principles - “did you say ‘yes’ - no? And he isn’t claiming you did say yes? Well then that’s a case” - while actually making it significantly harder than it already is for victims of rape who are -in the moment, or in ongoing exploitative situations - not in a position to safely withhold consent, to bring their rapists to justice


I’m a bit baffled by how anyone might think that anything I’ve typed in this post is unreasonable, tbh.

[Hoover Attack]

Yeah, that'd be me. No reason. Didn't think it would kick off like this.

https://www.charlotteproudman.com/

What a woke bitch.

Good to see some guys on the internet putting this award winning barrister of rape right on a few points she was unsure of.