Only an Ass Thinks “Assent” and “Consent” Are the Same in Sex

#AssentVsConsent

And the folks we rely on to provide language to our laws seem to be full-fledged asses!

The American Law Institute (ALI) created Model Penal Code (MPC) back in 1962. It’s goal was to standardize penal code throughout the US. Many states have adopted parts of its language including their definition of “consent”  You can see whether their definition was applied when you read your state’s statutes. Each state “picks” and “chooses” what it wants rather than adopting MPC in full.  

Nuremberg Code

Other efforts have also been made to clarify what does and does not constitute “consent” under the law. Nuremberg Code establishes consent in the eyes of the federal government. And it is crystal clear in Nuremberg Code, when you are deprived of knowledge or information — for instance, when you are below the age of reason — while you can “assent” to an action, you surely cannot “consent” to it. In fact, the child’s parents, not the child, must sign the consent form even though the child must sign a form acknowledging their assent when they take part in a medical experiment.

The real definitions

Assent means “Agreement.”

Consent means “Knowledgeable and informed agreement.”

And in sex, you must consent to both “the action” and “the actor.”

No one should be tricked, deceived, coerced, violently overwhelmed, drugged or intoxicated into the performance of a sexual act.

Everyone has the right to determine who they allow to touch their reproductive organs based on both knowledge of the action and clear and informed knowledge of the actor.

Simple isn’t it?

But let’s make it really complicated….. MPC Redux 

The 1962 version of MPC made it perfectly clear that trickery and deception invalidates consent. But here in 2016, when romance scams have reached epidemic proportions and people are being duped into sex right and left, the American Law Institute is now trying to white-wash the value of “consent” in sexual behavior.

Here’s the gobbledygook they recently came up with that clouds what should be a straight-forward definition of consent…..

A. SECTION 213.0. DEFINITIONS (3) “Consent” (a) “Consent” means a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact. Consent may be expressed or it may be inferred from behavior, including words and conduct—both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(a) of this Section, behavior does not constitute consent when it is the result of conduct specifically prohibited by Section [reserved]. (c) Neither verbal nor physical resistance is required to establish the absence of consent, but lack of physical or verbal resistance may be considered, in the context of all the circumstances, in determining whether the person has consented. (d) Consent may be revoked or withdrawn any time before or during the act of sexual penetration or sexual contact. Lack of consent or revocation or withdrawal of consent may be overridden by subsequent consent. (e) A clear verbal refusal—such as “No,” “Stop,” or “Don’t”—suffices to establish the lack of consent or the revocation or withdrawal of previous consent.

So lets take this ignorance masquerading as enlightenment apart piece by ugly piece…

(a) “Consent” means a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact.

No it does not! Consent means “Knowledgeable and informed agreement,” period! People can express “willingness” under many circumstances that fly in the face of “consent.” Hold a gun to their head; they’ll agree. Threaten their mother’s life; please! Deceive them into the act; Cmon! 

Consent may be expressed or it may be inferred from behavior, including words and conduct—both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances.

Judge Aaron Persky
Judge Aaron Persky

Can they make it easier for a sexual predator to claim that they had consent when they actually didn’t? Consent is not just agreement; it’s informed agreement. A person who your’re tricking into sex can behave as if they agree, but still not be providing consent….. and the offender knows when this is taking place! “Gee Judge, she acted like she consented!” And ignoramuses like Judge Persky would buy it! Either because they’re absurdly cruel or they don’t comprehend the difference between “assent” and “consent.” 

(c) Neither verbal nor physical resistance is required to establish the absence of consent, but lack of physical or verbal resistance may be considered, in the context of all the circumstances, in determining whether the person has consented.

So lets blur those lines even more! 

(e) A clear verbal refusal—such as “No,” “Stop,” or “Don’t”—suffices to establish the lack of consent or the revocation or withdrawal of previous consent.

This ridiculous comment will be interpreted as “No,” “Stop,” and “Don’t,” are the only means to withdraw consent. A victim who freezes and is unable to utter any form of resistance is simply “outta luck!”

The American Law Institute, like much of society, is attempting to protect sexual predators with this new absurdity.

I’m sure people will look at me like I’m crazy for saying this, but it’s true!

I can’t tell you how often I hear, “But according to your definition, myriads of people should be locked up for committing sexual assault!” I hear this, especially, from law makers.

Well guess what, if millions of people committed murder, they should be locked up. And if millions of people committed theft, they should be locked up. If millions of people commit sexual assault, they should be locked up too! And the strain on the judicial system be damned!

The truth is, if people recognized that what they are doing is so grotesquely harmful to the victim, they would either stop or they would be stopped. Years ago we didn’t recognize rape if the victim was a slave. Today we wonder how not only raping a slave, but owning a slave ever existed in moral society. At some point, society becomes enlightened and horrible practices change.  It’s time to recognize that defrauding a person of sex is an assault on them, not seduction.

Most people won’t get locked up for conducting this crime

#Criminal Incarceration for #SexualAssaultbyFraud

The reason is not because it’s not a sexual assault, but because two essential characteristics must be present to prosecute a crime…..

  1. The victim must behave as a reasonable person would do. This means that quickly hopping into the sack with a liar will never make its way to a court room. The victim would not have a “reasonable” basis of belief if they didn’t conduct a ‘reasonable”  amount of due diligence. Only cases where the offender egregiously lied could be tried as a criminal offense.
  2. There is no proof for the vast majority of cases, and only crimes with significant proof can secure an indictment.

So fears that half the world will go to jail if we actually recognize the importance of knowledge and information in “consent” is simply absurd. And the concerns that our courts will be overwhelmed with cases is total balderdash. But that’s what’s at the heart of the “tap dance” that prevents ALI from  stating a clear, accurate and viable definition of “consent” which would make sexual assault by fraud recognized as a crime.

But there’s and even more sinister reason why some law makers prevent recognition of sexual assault by fraud……

They simply don’t want it to end. Why do you think that could be?

Please write to Prof. Stephen Schulhoffer, (NYU & ALI) at schulhos@mercury.law.nyu.edu, to let him know that deceit and trickery invalidates your consent when a person has sex with you! Demand that deceit and trickery be covered in the definition of consent in ALI’s updated version of this term. And please cc me on that email at StopRomanceScams@yahoo.com.

 

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Only an Ass Thinks “Assent” and “Consent” Are the Same in Sex”

  1. Ian- The court system is only involved if penal code exists to make a crime a punishable offense. Making Sexual Assault by fraud and catfish profiling a “crime” is the first step.

    Like

  2. “This means that quickly hopping into the sack with a liar will never make its way to a court room. ”

    Why should it?

    Are you really suggesting that its OK to make deception in interpersonal relationships illegal?

    You are gonna need a lot more prisons for both men and women if that is the case.

    Either that or have a lawyer draw up a legally binding contract for each party to sign prior to them having sex as well as during. In fact the only truly safe way to have sex and to be protected from being falsely accused by a spurred and bitter ex sexual partner would be to record and store every single sexual encounter you ever had.

    “Well guess what, if millions of people committed murder, they should be locked up. And if millions of people committed theft, they should be locked up. If millions of people commit sexual assault, they should be locked up too! And the strain on the judicial system be damned!”

    You get that they are referring to your redefinition of what constitutes sexual assault and that you need to skip right over it to make that argument right?

    “This ridiculous comment will be interpreted as “No,” “Stop,” and “Don’t,” are the only means to withdraw consent. A victim who freezes and is unable to utter any form of resistance is simply “outta luck!””

    NONSENSE.

    A person who is drugged or incapacitated via drink or any other method is considered to have been raped (and rightly so) if a person has sex with them or performs sexual acts on them while they are in that condition.

    “There is no proof for the vast majority of cases, and only crimes with significant proof can secure an indictment.”

    YEA i mean what could go wrong, i know lets ask people who maybe familiar with systems that do not follow the “reasonable doubt” method.

    Hmm i know lets ask the 14 women and 6 men of Salem from between February 1692 and May 1693 what they think of throwing out the adversarial system, the right to remain silent, due process, the rules of evidence and the right to counsel etc…

    Lets throw it all out and go with the inquisitorial system and a “preponderance of evidence” attitude instead because such systems always result in justice right?

    The legal system we now have in the West has been developed and adjusted over a period of several thousand years, it has been honed so that the accused (who is facing the power and resources that a nation has available to collect evidence against him/her) has the ability to effectively defend themselves.

    Like

    1. I’ll address those arguments that I don’t see as “trivial” or simply your opinion:

      Ian: “This means that quickly hopping into the sack with a liar will never make its way to a court room. ” Why should it?

      Response: Because no one has the right to trick a victim in order to touch or otherwise engage their reproductive organs. Somehow, this concept seems lost on you.

      Ian: Are you really suggesting that its OK to make deception in interpersonal relationships illegal?

      Response: No, I’m saying that deception in touching a person’s reproductive organs is and should be illegal. (I’d also argue that it’s already illegal but most states deny the letter of their own penal codes.)

      Ian: You are gonna need a lot more prisons for both men and women if that is the case.

      Response: If that’s the case, and so many people behave this way, (and I believe they do) than we truly need this law. You, and a huge volume of people think behaving this way is and should be allowable. It’s ironic that you accept sexual cruelty and deviancy as “acceptable” because it’s commonplace. But to address your concern about the volume of cases that will result, it’s highly doubtful that would happen. People will wake up to the reality of the harm this causes. And if they’re so callous that they still don’t “get it,” the possibility of jail-time will serve as a deterrent.

      Ian: YEA i mean what could go wrong, i know lets ask people who maybe familiar with systems that do not follow the “reasonable doubt” method.

      Response: The flaws in our trial system do not prevent laws and prosecution on other crimes. Fix the process if you object to how justice is carried out. But don’t deny that a crime, indeed, takes place when a person is sexually violated. But you know that already based on your next comment that contradicts your own objection: “The legal system we now have in the West has been developed and adjusted over a period of several thousand years, it has been honed so that the accused (who is facing the power and resources that a nation has available to collect evidence against him/her) has the ability to effectively defend themselves.”

      Like

      1. ” But don’t deny that a crime, indeed, takes place when a person is sexually violated.”

        IF THEY ARE.

        The court system is designed to determine that and punish the alleged perpetrator if it finds they did.

        The recent jian ghomeshi case is a perfect example of what happens when people assume guilt instead of investigating.

        You wont like this but the best thing that could possibly happen for women in Canada is if those women who perjured themselves and colluded to get him prosecuted were tried and convicted for it.

        But dumb fuck feminists just want to make it easier for women to lie and get away with it.

        It may have been on here i saw a comment about “crimes that go unpunished tend to increase” well that includes perjury and the more it happens the less women are going to be trusted or believed on such matters.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s